First Responders
Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability Gao ID: GAO-07-301 April 2, 2007As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely communications across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It is vital to the safety and effectiveness of first responders that their electronic communications systems enable them to communicate with whomever they need to, when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so. GAO was asked to determine, among other things, (1) the extent to which Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance has helped to improve interoperable communications in selected states and (2) the progress that has been made in the development and implementation of interoperable communications standards. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed grant information, documentation of selected states' and localities' interoperability projects, and standards documents.
According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states and localities from 2003 through 2005 for communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects. However, states that GAO reviewed had generally not used strategic plans to guide investments toward broadly improving interoperability. Further, no national plan was in place to coordinate investments across states. To its credit, DHS has required states to implement a statewide plan by the end of 2007, and DHS has recently been required to implement a National Emergency Communications Plan. However, no process has been established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with statewide communications plans--progress by states and localities in improving interoperability is likely to be impeded. Until recently, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for developing Project 25 standards--a suite of national standards intended to enable interoperability among the communications products of different vendors--has made little progress. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used to develop Project 25 products. Specifications for three additional subsets of standards were defined over the past 2 years. However, ambiguities in the published standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no compliance testing has been conducted to determine if these products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios that still may not be interoperable and thus may provide few added benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-301, First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-301
entitled 'First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications
Interoperability' which was released on April 2, 2007.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2007:
First Responders:
Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability:
GAO-07-301:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-301, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and
other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely communications
across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It is vital to the
safety and effectiveness of first responders that their electronic
communications systems enable them to communicate with whomever they
need to, when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so. GAO
was asked to determine, among other things, (1) the extent to which
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance
has helped to improve interoperable communications in selected states
and (2) the progress that has been made in the development and
implementation of interoperable communications standards. To address
these objectives, GAO reviewed grant information, documentation of
selected states‘ and localities‘ interoperability projects, and
standards documents.
What GAO Found:
According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states
and localities from 2003 through 2005 for communications
interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with technical
assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of specific
interoperability projects. However, states that GAO reviewed (see table
below) had generally not used strategic plans to guide investments
toward broadly improving interoperability. Further, no national plan
was in place to coordinate investments across states. To its credit,
DHS has required states to implement a statewide plan by the end of
2007, and DHS has recently been required to implement a National
Emergency Communications Plan. However, no process has been established
for ensuring that states‘ grant requests are consistent with their
statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving
interoperable communications”such as including in its decision making
an assessment of how grant requests align with statewide communications
plans”progress by states and localities in improving interoperability
is likely to be impeded.
Until recently, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for
developing Project 25 standards”a suite of national standards intended
to enable interoperability among the communications products of
different vendors”has made little progress. Although one of the eight
major subsets of standards was defined in the project‘s first 4 years
(from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards
were completed that could be used to develop Project 25 products.
Specifications for three additional subsets of standards were defined
over the past 2 years. However, ambiguities in the published standards
have led to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors,
and no compliance testing has been conducted to determine if these
products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged
state and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25
radios, which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25
radios. As a result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer,
more expensive radios that still may not be interoperable and thus may
provide few added benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states
and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive equipment
that provides them with minimal additional benefits.
Table: DHS Grant Funding to Improve Interoperability in Selected
States:
State: New York;
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $145.5 million.
State: Kentucky;
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $50 million.
State: Oregon;
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $53.4 million.
State: Florida;
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $55.7 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations to DHS, which include assessing how
states‘ grant requests support statewide communications plans and
modifying its guidance on acquiring interoperable equipment. DHS
disagreed with the latter recommendation, but GAO believes that it is
important to provide more flexibility until completed subsets of
standards have been fully defined. DHS agreed or deferred comment on
all others.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-301].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202)512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a
More Strategic Approach Is Needed:
SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of
Government to Achieve Interoperability:
Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards,
but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within Selected
States:
Florida:
Kentucky:
New York:
Oregon:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools:
Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical
Assistance:
Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable
Communications:
Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces:
Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases:
Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment
Program:
Figures:
Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System:
Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location
on the Radio Spectrum:
Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location:
Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces:
Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network:
Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution:
Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network:
Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview:
Abbreviations:
COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
GHz: gigahertz:
ICTAP: Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program:
IP: Internet Protocol:
IWN: Integrated Wireless Network:
kHz: kilohertz:
MHz: megahertz:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
OEC: Office of Emergency Communications:
TIA: Telecommunications Industry Association:
TICP: Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan:
UASI: Urban Area Security Initiative:
UHF: ultra high frequency:
VHF: very high frequency:
VoIP: Voice over Internet Protocol:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 2, 2007:
The Honorable William Lacy Clay:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Emergency "first responders"--personnel such as firefighters, police
officers, and ambulance services who are the first to arrive at the
scene of an emergency--are supported by a variety of public safety
agencies, including 911 call center staff and other local, state, and
federal authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios,
are vital to the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their
supporting agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large.
Communications interoperability--also referred to as compatibility or
connectivity--refers to the capability of different electronic
communications systems to readily connect with each other and thus
enable timely communications.
Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public
safety officials for many years. Toward that end, two major Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve interoperable
public safety communications are: (1) grant funding and technical
assistance provided by the Office of Grants and Training to high-risk
regions at the state and local level for on-site support as they work
to improve their interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program, intended
to strengthen interoperable public safety communications at all levels
of government. The program is intended to provide research,
development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on
communications-related issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a
joint initiative by government and commercial organizations to develop
a set of national standards for vendors to use when designing radio
communications equipment for first responders.
You asked us to assess the extent to which DHS has made progress in
improving interoperable communications for first responders.
Specifically, our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which
DHS funding and technical assistance have helped to improve
interoperable communications in selected states, (2) the progress the
SAFECOM program has made in improving interoperable communications, and
(3) the progress that has been made in the development and
implementation of interoperable communications standards.
To address our objectives, we conducted case studies of four states
(Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Oregon) and 11 selected localities
within those states. We used a number of factors to select states,
including those that had received relatively large amounts of DHS
funding, as well as those that routinely face natural disasters. The
localities we selected included (1) large, high-risk urban areas,
referred to as Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions, which
received the most funding from DHS within our selected states, (2) the
non-UASI counties that received the largest amount of DHS funding
within these states, and (3) the counties and cities where the state
capitals are located.[Footnote 1] To assess each state's use of DHS
grants and technical assistance to improve interoperability and to
identify common issues among states, we analyzed documentation obtained
from state and local officials, such as grant allocation information
and communications interoperability plans. To determine the progress
SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable communications, we analyzed
program management documentation (such as program goals, initiatives,
and performance measures) and interviewed state and local officials
regarding their use of SAFECOM tools and guidance. To determine the
status of the development and implementation of interoperable
communications standards, we obtained and analyzed documentation from
DHS, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the
four states. We performed our work from April 2006 to February 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided
in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states
and localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for
communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with
technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of
specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed,
strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and
provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a
broader level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide
their investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national
plan was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while
UASI officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had
been helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value
in measuring progress. Further, although DHS has required states to
implement statewide plans by the end of 2007, no process has been
established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent
with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach
to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with
statewide communications plans--and until more rigorous exercises are
conducted, progress by states and localities in improving
interoperability is likely to be impeded.
The SAFECOM program has made limited progress in improving
communications interoperability at all levels of government; however,
the program has not addressed interoperability with federal agencies, a
critical element to interoperable communications required by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.[Footnote 2]
The SAFECOM program has focused on helping states and localities
improve interoperable communications by developing tools and guidance
for their use. However, based on our review of four states and selected
localities, SAFECOM's progress in achieving its goals of helping these
states and localities improve interoperable communications has been
limited. Officials from the states and localities we reviewed often
found that the tools and planning assistance provided by the program
were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the program
had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to poor
program management practices, including the lack of a plan for
improving interoperability across all levels of government and
inadequate performance measures that would provide feedback to better
attune tools and assistance with public safety needs. Until SAFECOM
adopts these key management practices, its progress is likely to remain
limited.
Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable
interoperability among the communications products of different
vendors. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was
defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993
through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used
by a vendor to develop elements of a Project 25 system. To its credit,
over the past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body responsible
for Project 25 has defined specifications for three additional subsets
of standards. However, ambiguities in the published standards have led
to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no
compliance testing has been conducted to ensure vendors' products are
interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and
local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios,
which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a
result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive
radios, which still may not be interoperable and thus may provide them
with minimal additional benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance
to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment,
states and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive
equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.
We are making recommendations to DHS to enhance the effectiveness of
the department's efforts to improve interoperable communications,
including assessing how states' grant requests support their statewide
communications plans as a factor in the grant allocation process,
implementing a program plan and establishing performance measures to
assess the effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools, and modifying
guidance to states and localities regarding acquisition of
communications equipment to allow a more flexible approach until
completed subsets of standards have been fully defined, and products
have been certified compliant.
We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and
the director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the
Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in
appendixes III and IV. Commerce provided updated information and
technical comments, which we have incorporated, where appropriate.
In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two,
stated that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one
recommendation.
DHS agreed with the intent of our recommendation that it develop and
implement a program plan and stated that it is currently working to
develop such a plan. DHS also agreed with our recommendation to develop
quantifiable performance measures for the program.
DHS disagreed with our recommendation on modifying grant guidance to
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until
standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined, stating
that the recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend its
interoperability grant guidance until after the entire Project 25 suite
of standards is complete, and would undermine the final remaining
negotiations between the public safety community and equipment
manufacturers. We agree that not all interfaces need to be fully
defined before agencies can begin acquiring Project 25 products; thus
we have clarified the recommendation to reflect this. However, we are
not recommending that the public safety community be prohibited from
acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus we do not believe negotiations
with equipment manufacturers would be undermined.
DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate.
Background:
Public safety agencies include the nation's first responders (such as
firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center
staff, and a number of local, state, federal, and regional authorities.
Communications, often through wireless land mobile radios, are vital to
these agencies' effectiveness and to the safety of their members and
the public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in
order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work
within specified frequency ranges.
Interoperability in the context of public safety communications systems
refers to the ability of first responders to communicate with whomever
they need to (including personnel from a variety of agencies and
jurisdictions), when they need to, and when they are authorized to do
so. It is important to note that the goal of being able to communicate
when necessary and authorized is not the same as being able to
communicate with any other individual at any time--a capability that
could overwhelm the communications infrastructure and would likely
impede effective communication and response time.
Different first responder groups each have different professional
practices, public safety missions, emergency response procedures,
communication protocols, and radio frequencies. These differences have
created a variety of obstacles to effective interoperable
communications among first responders. Thus, facilitating interoperable
communications has been a policy concern of public safety officials for
many years.
Land Mobile Radio System Technology:
Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communications among
public safety personnel. These systems typically consist of handheld
portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and repeaters. Handheld
portable radios are typically carried by public safety personnel and
tend to have a limited transmission range. Mobile radios are often
located in vehicles and use the vehicle's power supply and a larger
antenna, providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable
radios. Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as
public service access points or dispatch centers, and tend to have the
most powerful transmitters. A network is required to connect the
different base stations to the same communications system. Repeaters
are used to increase the effective communications range of handheld
portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios by
retransmitting received radio signals. Figure 1 below illustrates the
basic components of a land mobile radio system.
Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO and DHS.
[End of figure]
The transmissions between the elements of a land mobile radio system
consist of electromagnetic waves that propagate along designated
frequencies of the radio spectrum. Each communications link uniquely
occupies a specific frequency or set of frequencies for as long as
information is being transmitted. The radio spectrum is a fixed,
limited resource that is shared among government and nongovernment
entities for many uses in addition to public safety communications,
such as television broadcasting, AM/FM radio, and aeronautical radio
navigation. Most public safety agencies use their allocated frequencies
for voice communications but are increasingly using their portion of
the spectrum to support more advanced technologies, such as data,
imagery, and video transmissions. The specific frequency bands
allocated to public safety agencies are shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location
on the Radio Spectrum:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO and DHS.
[End of figure]
Major frequency ranges that are used for public safety communications
include the very high frequency (VHF) range and the ultra high
frequency (UHF) range. VHF signals travel farther than UHF signals and
thus are useful in suburban and rural areas. However, they generally
cannot penetrate building walls very well. In contrast, UHF signals are
more appropriate for denser urban areas as they penetrate buildings
more easily, and it is less critical that the signals be able to
propagate for long distances. The frequencies used by federal agencies
are managed by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, while the Federal Communications Commission manages
state and local government frequencies.
Radio systems are classified as either conventional or "trunked."
Conventional radio systems have dedicated frequencies--also referred to
as channels--assigned to individual groups of users. When a user makes
a call, other members of the group cannot use the channel until the
call is over. In contrast, trunked systems allocate pools of channels
for use by multiple individuals. When a call is made by a user on a
trunked system, an available channel is automatically selected from the
pool of channels, leaving the remaining channels available for others.
While trunked systems are more complex and require more infrastructure
than conventional systems, they allow for more efficient use of
communication channels, reducing congestion.
Lack of Interoperable Communications Has Long Hindered Emergency
Response:
In order to effectively respond to emergencies such as natural
disasters and domestic terrorism, public safety agencies need the
ability to communicate with their counterparts in other disciplines and
jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications systems used by
many police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and
other public safety agencies do not provide such capability. For
example, emergency agencies responding to events such as the bombing of
the federal building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11,
2001, experienced difficulties in trying to communicate with each
other. The 9/11 Commission concluded that communications
interoperability problems contributed to the large number of
firefighter fatalities that occurred at the World Trade
Center.[Footnote 3]
Historically, first responder communications interoperability has been
significantly hampered by different and incompatible radio systems.
Different technologies and configurations, including proprietary
designs, by different manufacturers have limited the interoperability
of public safety wireless communications systems. These systems have
also operated on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In
particular, public safety agencies have been assigned frequencies in
new bands over time as available frequencies became congested, and as
new technologies made higher frequencies available for use. Existing
radios are unable to transmit and receive in all of the public safety
frequencies, often making communications between first responders from
different jurisdictions difficult. Additionally, as we have previously
reported,[Footnote 4] there is a need for better frequency planning and
coordination. Further, public safety agencies have historically planned
and acquired communications systems without concern for
interoperability, often resulting in multiple, technically incompatible
systems in operation throughout any given local jurisdiction.
A variety of technical approaches have been adopted to help improve
interoperable communications, including the following:
* Swapping radios: Agencies maintain a cache of extra radios that they
can distribute during an emergency to other first responders whose
radios are not interoperable with their own. The advantage of this
solution is that it does not require that all existing radios be
replaced, an important consideration when funds to buy new equipment
are limited. However, this approach requires significant logistical
support and careful management to implement successfully.
* Patching: Two or more incompatible radio systems are connected to a
central switchboard-like system that translates a signal sent from one
connected system so that it can be received by any of the other
connected systems. The principal advantage of this solution is that
agencies can continue to use existing systems that would otherwise be
incompatible. A major disadvantage is that patching requires twice as
much spectrum because a patched transmission occupies separate channels
on each connected system.
* Shared channels or mutual aid channels: Agencies agree to set aside a
specific channel or channels for connecting to other incompatible
systems. This approach provides direct interoperable communications and
only occupies one channel per conversation. However, it can cause
congestion since these channels require dedicated frequencies and thus
have limited capacity.
* Shared systems: The use of a single or common radio system--typically
a trunked system--to provide service to most agencies within a region.
Shared systems are the most robust form of interoperability and do not
require dedicated channels. While this approach produces optimal
performance, it can be very expensive, because it generally requires
purchasing all new radios and transmission equipment.
Technologies that can help implement shared systems include the
following:
* Internet Protocol based systems: Using the Voice over Internet
Protocol,[Footnote 5] advanced communications systems can offer the
flexibility to transmit voice conversations over a data network such as
the Internet or a private network.
* Software-defined radios: These are intended to allow interoperability
among agencies using different frequency bands, different operational
modes (digital or analog), proprietary systems from different
manufacturers, or different modulations (such as AM or FM). However,
software-defined radios are still being developed and are not yet
available for use by public safety agencies.
However, interoperability cannot be achieved solely by implementing
technical solutions. Coordination among different agencies and
governmental entities is also critical. Response to an emergency may
involve all levels of government and many different disciplines, such
as law enforcement organizations, fire departments, emergency medical
services, transportation, natural resources, and public utility
sectors. Each of these agencies is likely to have its own policies,
procedures, and communications protocols when responding to an
incident. A simplistic example is the word "fire," which to a
firefighter means that something is burning but to a police officer is
a command to shoot a weapon. Resolving such cultural and procedural
differences can be challenging.
Further, the extent to which interoperable communications are needed
among different agencies, disciplines, and levels of government
(federal, state, local, and tribal) varies based on the size,
significance, and duration of an emergency event. Increasing degrees of
interoperability may be needed for (1) routine day-to-day coordination
between a few agencies in a local area, (2) extended operations
involving agencies from multiple jurisdictions working on a larger
problem (such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area), and (3) a major, large-scale event that requires
response from a range of local, state, and federal agencies and
disciplines (such as major wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001).
In 2004,[Footnote 6] we reported that a fundamental barrier to
successfully addressing interoperable communications problems for
public safety was the lack of effective, collaborative,
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. We recommended that
DHS take a number of actions to address this barrier, such as
determining the current status of interoperable communications across
the nation and encouraging states to establish comprehensive statewide
interoperability plans and certify the alignment of their grant
applications with their statewide plans. DHS has taken steps to address
these recommendations. For example, it recently completed a national
survey of first responders to determine the current status of their
interoperability capabilities, and it has required states to develop
statewide communications plans by the end of 2007.
Programs Aimed at Improving Interoperable Communications:
SAFECOM is a DHS program intended to strengthen interoperable public
safety communications at all levels of government. The program provides
research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and
templates on communications-related issues. We previously
reported[Footnote 7] that changes in leadership delayed progress during
the initial years of the SAFECOM program and that the program suffered
from a lack of leadership and focus.
Since 2004, SAFECOM has spent $20.4 million developing several tools
and providing assistance to help guide states and localities as they
work to improve the interoperability of their communication systems.
Table 1 outlines several tools and guidance that SAFECOM had developed
as of July 2006. The program continues to develop additional tools.
Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools:
Guidance or tool: Statement of Requirements;
Description: This document is intended to define and identify the range
of future requirements for voice and data communications to enable
interoperability. It provides definitions of a variety of interoperable
communication subjects, such as public safety communication needs,
public safety roles and functions, and the levels of operability and
interoperability for each major public safety discipline.
Guidance or tool: Public Safety Architecture Framework;
Description: This framework is intended to provide a methodology to
plan and develop the migration from current public safety architectures
to the interoperable systems outlined in the Statement of Requirements.
Guidance or tool: Interoperability Continuum;
Description: The Interoperability Continuum provides a graphical
depiction of five critical success factors for achieving
interoperability that SAFECOM developed based on feedback from first
responders. This tool is intended to provide a framework that emergency
response agencies can use to baseline their planning and implementation
of interoperability solutions.
Guidance or tool: RapidCom;
Description: RapidCom provided assistance to 10 high-threat urban
areas, including New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, to help improve
incident-level communications interoperability capabilities in those
locations. RapidCom was intended to help incident commanders
communicate with each other and their command centers in a timely
manner by helping them to establish objectives, identify solutions, and
take steps toward implementation.
Guidance or tool: Regional Communications Interoperability Pilot
projects;
Description: SAFECOM officials worked with public safety officials at
all levels of government in Nevada and Kentucky to help them develop
both short-term and long-term goals aimed at improving interoperability
within their states.
Guidance or tool: Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning
Methodology;
Description: The methodology describes a step-by-step process for
developing a locally driven statewide strategic plan for enhancing
communications interoperability.
Guidance or tool: Grant Guidance;
Description: SAFECOM's grant guidance is intended to provide consistent
criteria for agencies to use when purchasing equipment with federal
funds.
Source: GAO based on DHS data.
[End of table]
We previously recommended that in order to enhance the ability of
SAFECOM to improve communications among emergency personnel from
federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, SAFECOM officials should
complete written agreements with the project's identified stakeholders
(including federal agencies and organizations representing state and
local governments) that define the responsibilities and resource
commitments that each of those organizations will assume and include
specific provisions that measure program performance.[Footnote 8] Since
we made our recommendation, SAFECOM program officials have established
a governance charter for the program, which outlines the roles,
relationships, and operating guidelines for participating stakeholders.
The Office of Grants and Training, which is scheduled to become part of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a separate entity within
DHS that is responsible for, among other things, providing grants and
technical assistance to states and localities to help them improve
their interoperable communications. Grants and Training provides
funding to states and requires that at least 80 percent of grant
funding provided to states through the Homeland Security Grant Program
be passed to localities. Grants and Training also provides additional
funding to address the unique planning, equipment, training, and
exercise needs of UASI areas.[Footnote 9]
DHS uses a partly risk-based approach to allocate grant funds. State
agencies submit proposals to DHS which form the basis for its risk-
based decisions. During the most recent grant allocation process in
2006 for the Homeland Security Grant Program, each state and territory
received a portion of its grant funding through a base allocation. The
remainder of funds was allocated based on an analysis of risk and need.
In fiscal year 2006, the UASI funds were allocated based on risk and
effectiveness. DHS estimated the relative risk of successful terrorist
attacks on selected urban areas, considering threat, vulnerability, and
consequences for both asset-based and geographic factors. On the basis
of this analysis, it ranked the UASI areas and identified 35 urban
areas as eligible to apply for UASI funding. In addition, the 11 urban
areas that received funding previously, but were not identified as UASI
areas in 2006, have been extended eligibility for funding for one
additional year. DHS also used a peer review process to assess the
effectiveness of each of the 35 urban areas' proposed investments using
the grant funds.
Grants and Training has also established a monitoring program in which
preparedness officers validate that grant funds are being administered
legally and in accordance with the guidance provided to grantees.
Preparedness officers work with the states to help address areas of
concern, needs, and priorities. The monitoring program is also intended
to provide a general assessment of where states and localities are in
protecting their citizens. In addition, in efforts to control the use
of awards, DHS officials have developed an Approved Equipment List that
provides information on allowable equipment expenditures.
Further, Grants and Training established the Interoperable
Communications Technical Assistance Program, which has provided
guidance and technical assistance to the UASI areas. While the program
focuses mostly on providing guidance and assistance to these specific
areas, assistance is also provided to non-UASI areas. Table 2 provides
a list of the assistance and guidance offered by Grants and Training.
Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical
Assistance:
Guidance or technical assistance: Tactical Interoperable Communications
Plan (TICP) guidance;
Description: Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must develop a plan to
achieve tactical interoperable communications across its separate
jurisdictions. The TICP guidance provides an outline of key elements
that should be covered in the plan, such as a governance structure and
interoperability equipment in the region.
Guidance or technical assistance: TICP exercise guidance;
Description: Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must validate the
effectiveness of their communication plan by conducting a full-scale
exercise. ICTAP provided supporting material, such as an evaluator
handbook.
Guidance or technical assistance: Interoperable Communications
Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP);
Description: An ICTAP technical assistance team works on-site with the
UASI areas' communications representatives to identify gaps in existing
communications infrastructure and to translate operational requirements
into technical requirements that can be used to design an interoperable
system.
Guidance or technical assistance: UASI scorecard;
Description: Grants and Training, in consultation with SAFECOM and the
Wireless Management Office, has developed scorecards that assess the
maturity of tactical interoperable communications capabilities in the
UASI areas. The goal of the scorecard effort is to provide an
assessment of each urban/ metropolitan area and to provide
recommendations on how to best improve tactical interoperable
communications. DHS released the scorecards to the UASI areas in
January 2007.
Source: GAO based on DHS data.
[End of table]
Another grant program focused on interoperable communications is the
Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Interoperable Communications Grant program. The program awards
technology grants to law enforcement agencies for interoperable
communications and information sharing. While the program used to have
a larger role in providing grant funding to states and localities, its
scope and budget was significantly reduced in 2006 in an effort to
eliminate overlap with DHS's grant program.
More recently, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act[Footnote 10] transferred
many SAFECOM program responsibilities to a new Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC). This new office, which is not yet operational, is
to take over the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance
Program from Grants and Training and the Integrated Wireless Network
project, which is intended to create a consolidated federal wireless
communications service for federal public safety agencies. This new
office is tasked with improving overall emergency communications for
first responders, as well as improving interoperability. In addition to
the OEC, the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the
Science and Technology Directorate will continue to house the remaining
elements of SAFECOM related to research, development, testing and
evaluation, and standards.
Project 25 Was Established to Address First Responder Interoperability
Standards:
In 1989, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and
selected federal agencies established Project 25 to develop open
standards for vendors to use when designing land mobile radio
communications equipment. Project 25 has the following four primary
objectives:
* enable effective inter-and intra-agency communications,
* improve radio spectrum efficiency,
* focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs, and:
* leverage an open architecture to promote competition across land
mobile radio vendors.
Project 25 standards are intended to be a suite of national standards,
based upon public safety user requirements, which define operable and
interoperable communications equipment for first responders. When
complete, this suite of standards is intended to allow for
specifications to be written for interfaces between the various
components of a land mobile radio system. The Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials, the National Association of State
Telecommunications Directors, and federal agency representatives, work
with the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)--an American
National Standards Institute-accredited[Footnote 11] standards
development organization--to develop and maintain the standards.
DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a
More Strategic Approach Is Needed:
According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states
and localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for
communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with
technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of
specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed,
strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and
provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a
broader level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide
their investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national
plan was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while
UASI officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had
been helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value
in measuring progress. Further, although DHS has required states to
implement statewide plans by the end of 2007, no process has been
established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent
with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach
to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with
statewide communications plans--and until more rigorous exercises are
conducted, progress by states and localities in improving
interoperability is likely to be impeded.
DHS Funding Has Helped Make Improvements on Specific Interoperability
Projects in Selected States:
One of the main purposes of the DHS grants program is to provide
financial assistance to states and localities to help them fund
projects to develop and implement interoperable communications systems.
In addition, as previously mentioned, the Interoperable Communications
Technical Assistance Program is intended to provide on-site assistance
to UASI areas to, among other things, assist with developing tactical
interoperability plans, planning exercises, assessing communication
gaps, and designing interoperable systems.
The four states we reviewed received assistance from DHS, which helped
make improvements on specific interoperability projects.
* Florida: Florida has spent $36.5 million in DHS funds to develop a
system called the Florida Interoperability Network, which establishes
network connections between federal, state, and local dispatch centers
across Florida and provides mutual aid channels throughout the state.
As a result, the level of interoperability across the state has
improved significantly. First responders in 64 of Florida's 67 counties
are now able to have their communications patched to each other as
needed via the network. Previously, they had no such infrastructure for
achieving interoperability. However, officials from localities in
Florida raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the
network. Each connected jurisdiction must pay the ongoing costs of
their connection to the Florida Interoperability Network, and smaller
jurisdictions are likely to find this unaffordable. Further, Florida
officials remarked that training across the state is still incomplete.
Additionally, in the Miami UASI region, a majority of the Urban Area
Security Initiative funding for interoperable communications has been
used to acquire communications equipment, such as radios, and
interoperability solutions, such as devices that interconnect first
responders on disparate radios, to make improvements in Miami City and
in Miami-Dade County. However, limited UASI funding had been dedicated
to making interoperability improvements in other localities in the
Miami UASI, such as Monroe and Broward Counties.
* Kentucky: Kentucky used a portion of its DHS funding to expand the
use of mutual aid interoperability radio channels that allow agencies
on different communication systems throughout Kentucky to tune to a
dedicated, shared frequency to communicate. Prior to this initiative,
first responders operating on different frequencies were unable to
communicate. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies
have signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the mutual
aid channels in accordance to standardized procedures. However, mutual
aid channels have limited capacity, and Kentucky has yet to implement a
long-term solution for a statewide voice communications system that
will allow federal, state, and local first responders to communicate
directly as needed. Kentucky has also used DHS funding to implement a
statewide wireless data communications system. The system provides
functionality such as statewide records management, real-time crime
coverage and data collection, and instant messaging. First responders
use mobile data terminals to communicate with each other and, in many
cases, retrieve information from agency databases. Kentucky's mobile
data network currently has coverage across approximately 95 percent of
the state's primary and secondary road systems. Such capabilities were
not available to Kentucky's first responders prior to this initiative.
In the Louisville UASI, local officials have utilized DHS funding to
implement patching mechanisms to connect different communication
systems throughout the region. However, according to officials,
communications channels are frequently congested because of the amount
of patching that needs to be done to connect responders.
* New York: In New York, DHS funding is generally being utilized by
localities to address local interoperability issues within their
counties and with neighboring counties. For example, Albany County is
acquiring a new interoperable system that connects first responders on
many disparate systems within Albany County and neighboring counties.
Prior to this system, there was no single voice system or network that
would allow incident commanders and first responders to be able to
communicate directly. However, the local solutions do not always
incorporate state and federal systems. For example, the state is using
state funds to develop and implement a separate and incompatible
statewide network called the Statewide Wireless Network, which
localities are not required to join. Albany County, for example, has no
immediate plans to connect their new system to the statewide system
because of uncertainties about the expense and the expected benefits
for the county. In the New York City UASI, local officials have used a
portion of DHS funding to implement a citywide mobile wireless network.
This system is intended to provide first responders throughout the city
with high-speed data access to support large file transfers, including
accessing federal and state anticrime and antiterrorism databases,
fingerprints, mug shots, city maps, and full-motion streaming video.
* Oregon: Oregon, in accordance with DHS guidance, has dedicated most
of its DHS funding to local projects that improve interoperability in
specific regions. For example, Jackson and Josephine Counties are
jointly implementing an interoperable communications system.
Previously, first responders in these two neighboring counties relied
on indirect means for establishing interoperable communications, such
as radio channels, patching mechanisms, and a mobile command vehicle
equipped with a cache of radios in different frequencies and a patching
device that could be deployed as needed. However, this new system does
not include federal or state first responders. In addition, limited DHS
funding has been utilized for developing plans for the development of
the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network. This system is intended
to replace state agencies' deteriorating systems with a new system. It
is also intended to connect local agencies that continue to use their
existing systems to other local agencies that they do not already have
interoperability with. To date, the development of this system has not
been initiated. In the Portland UASI, DHS funding was used to install
repeaters in Columbia County to enhance interoperability with the other
four counties in the urban area. However, while it has improved the
interoperability, not all Columbia County first responders are able to
utilize this solution. Therefore, the UASI funding was also used to
purchase a supply of reserve radios--referred to as a cache--that can
be shared.
Table 3 shows the amount of DHS funding states and localities have
received and examples of what the money has been used for.
Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable
Communications:
Location: State of New York;
Examples of purchases: A communication vehicle with equipment to enable
interoperable communications at the scene of an incident such as extra
radios and patching devices;
Studies of initial interoperability projects for Onondaga County;
Emergency Services Interoperability Radio System project, which
provides interoperability among the county and surrounding counties, as
well as radios and a patching system for Albany County;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $74.9 million[C].
Location: New York City UASI;
Examples of purchases: Portions of the citywide-Mobile Wireless
Network, communications enhancements for the New York City Fire
Department Operations Center, and local area network installation for
the police department;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $70.6 million[D].
Location: Kentucky;
Examples of purchases: Installation of infrastructure across the state
to facilitate the use of interoperability radio channels;
Computer-aided dispatch consolidation efforts and upgrades to dispatch
infrastructure for Montgomery County;
Development of a mobile data system for Franklin County;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $39.5 million.
Location: Louisville UASI;
Examples of purchases: Mobile radios, training costs, accessories for
radio equipment, and equipment used for patching communications;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $10.5 million[E F].
Location: Oregon;
Examples of purchases: Development of plans for the Oregon Wireless
Interoperability Network, radios, mobile data terminals, and devices
that interconnect first responders on disparate systems;
Hospital communication upgrades, base station equipment, and radios;
Development of a system that connects Jackson County to Josephine
County;
Developing a communications plan for Marion County;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $45.9 million.
Location: Portland UASI;
Examples of purchases: Radios, communication equipment for emergency
operations center, mobile data terminals, and repeaters;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $7.5 million.
Location: Florida;
Examples of purchases: The Florida Interoperability Network, which
establishes network connections between federal, state, and local
dispatch centers across Florida and provides mutual aid channels
throughout the state;
Emergency Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, which are
mobile systems that can be deployed to a specific response area to
patch multiple disparate communications systems together;
Mutual Aid Radio Communications units, which are stand-alone mobile
interoperable communications networks and self-contain the
infrastructure to set up a communications system in the absence of an
operable system;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $44 million[G].
Location: Miami UASI;
Examples of purchases: Radios, back-up radio system, cache of radios, a
mobile emergency operations center, and devices that interconnect first
responders on disparate radio systems;
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years
2003 to 2005b: $11.7 million.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS, state, and locality data.
Note: These amounts include DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through
fiscal year 2005, as the complete 2006 figures were not available at
the time of our review.
[A] Allocations of DHS grant funding to interoperable communications
are determined by each state and reported by each state to DHS.
[B] DHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications
includes funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the
Office of Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security
Program and the UASI program.
[C] The $74.9 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded
to New York, including the Buffalo UASI, with the exception of the
$70.6 million that was awarded to the New York City UASI.
[D] For fiscal year 2003, New York did not designate separate
Interoperable Communications funding for the state and urban area.
[E] From 2003 through 2005, Louisville was a designated UASI area. In
2006 DHS reduced the number of UASI areas; as a result, Louisville is
no longer a designated UASI area. However, it received funding from the
UASI program in 2006 to help it sustain ongoing projects.
[F] For fiscal year 2003, Kentucky did not designate separate
Interoperable Communications funding for the state and urban area.
[G] The $44 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded to
Florida, including the Tampa and Jacksonville UASI areas, with the
exception of the $11.7 million that was awarded to the Miami UASI.
[End of table]
A Lack of Statewide Plans Has Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of
DHS Funding:
According to SAFECOM guidance, interoperability cannot be solved by any
one entity alone and, therefore, an effective and interoperable
communications system requires a clear and compelling statewide
strategy focused on increasing public safety effectiveness and
coordination across all related organizations. A statewide
interoperability plan is essential for outlining such a strategy. Such
a plan should establish long-term objectives but also include short-
term solutions that help incrementally achieve sustainable solutions to
the long-term objectives. Thus, establishing long-term plans helps
ensure that near-term solutions are consistent with the end goal.
The narrow and specific use of DHS funding in the states we reviewed
can be traced in part to the lack of statewide plans; interoperability
investments by individual localities have not been coordinated toward
achieving a broader goal for the state. For example, Kentucky, which
has received grant funding totaling approximately $50 million since
fiscal year 2003 according to DHS, has not yet developed a statewide
communications plan, although in January 2007, officials stated that
they had begun developing a plan. While Kentucky has recently begun
working to assess how best to address statewide needs, to date, grant
reviewers at the state level who are in charge of disbursing DHS grant
money to localities have had limited means for determining whether
funding requests for equipment and training were compatible with
statewide interoperability goals. For example, evaluators were required
to assess aspects of request proposals such as whether they fully
addressed the measurable objectives expected for a new wireless
communication system and whether they addressed how the applicant
agency would communicate with other public safety and/or public service
organizations at the local, state, and federal levels. However, the
available criteria do not provide the evaluators with an overall
statewide strategy that the evaluators could use to assess whether the
localities' proposal is aligned to it. As a result, the equipment and
activities that localities have purchased have tended to address short-
term voice communication solutions for local interoperability problems
while long-term, statewide solutions have not been addressed. However,
as previously stated, Kentucky has developed a data communications
network to supplement gaps in its voice communications.
Similarly, New York does not yet have a statewide communications plan
and, therefore, does not utilize DHS grant funding in support of such a
plan. While state officials recommend that localities invest in
interoperable communications, they provide no additional guidance to
localities to ensure that local investments are consistent with
statewide goals. As a result, localities have generally used the
funding to address local interoperability issues within their counties
and neighboring counties, with little regard for state and federal
systems. For example, while New York is currently in the process of
deploying the Statewide Wireless Network for $2 billion, localities are
not required to participate, and local interest in the statewide system
has been limited. As a result, localities are continuing to develop
their own interoperability solutions that do not incorporate the
network. Among localities we reviewed, Onondaga County is implementing
its own $33 million interoperable communications system independently
of the network, and Albany County, likewise, is currently developing a
$1.7 million interoperability system that does not incorporate the
Statewide Wireless Network. Officials stated that once the network's
pilot period is complete they will decide whether to participate in the
network.
In accordance with a previous recommendation, DHS has required grant
recipients to develop and adopt a statewide communications plan by the
end of 2007. Additionally, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act states that
DHS may restrict funding to a state if it does not submit a statewide
interoperable communication plan.[Footnote 12] However, despite our
other previous recommendation that DHS should require that states
certify that grant applications be consistent with statewide
plans,[Footnote 13] no process has yet been established for ensuring
that states' grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans
and long-term objectives for improving interoperability. Grants and
Training officials are considering instituting such a process but they
do not have specific plans to do so.
Because of the lack of coordination, state and local governments are
investing significant resources, including DHS grant funds, in
developing independent interoperability solutions that do not always
support each others' needs. Until the DHS-mandated statewide
communications plans are in place, and processes have been established
for ensuring that each state's grant request is consistent with its
statewide plan and longer-term interoperability goals, progress by
states and localities in improving interoperability is likely to be
impeded.
The Lack of a National Plan Has Also Contributed to Limited Strategic
Use of DHS Funding:
In addition to statewide plans, an overarching national plan is
critical to coordinating interoperability spending, especially where
federal first responders are involved. According to the Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee,[Footnote 14] improving interoperable
communications across the nation will require a national plan that
includes all levels of government and defines operational policies and
procedures and the proper use of national communications resources. In
responding to large-scale events--such as wildfires, hurricanes, or
terrorist attacks--state and local government first responders require
interoperable communications with federal agencies.
To date, however, interoperability investments have tended to be
isolated and piecemeal, in part because they have not been guided by a
comprehensive national plan. For example, officials stated that Oregon
and its bordering states--Washington, California, and Idaho--are each
working independently to try to implement and meet federal
communication requirements and improve interoperability.
In a large-scale emergency, where first responders may need to
coordinate with agencies from other states and a variety of federal
agencies, the lack of national-level planning can result in substantial
interoperability problems. During Hurricane Katrina, for example,
Florida first responders spent half a day trying to contact their
counterparts in Louisiana and Mississippi in an effort to share
communications equipment. If these states coordinated prior to the
catastrophe, it is likely that less time and energy would have been
wasted.
The lack of a national strategy has also left state officials uncertain
about whether they are taking appropriate steps to plan for
interoperability. For example, Oregon officials indicated they are
uncertain whether the approach they are taking is the best way to solve
their interoperability problems.
The 2007 DHS Appropriations Act[Footnote 15] requires DHS to develop a
National Emergency Communications Plan by March 2008. Among other
things, the plan is to identify necessary emergency communications
capabilities for first responders and government officials, identify
obstacles to interoperable communications, provide both short-term and
long-term solutions to those obstacles, and establish goals and time
frames for the deployment of emergency communications systems based on
new and existing equipment across the United States.
Technical Assistance Has Been Helpful, but Exercises Curtailed by DHS
Have Had Limited Strategic Value:
According to state and local officials, the Interoperable
Communications Technical Assistance Program has been beneficial to each
of the four UASI areas we visited. For example, according to Miami
officials, the program provided extensive support in the development of
the tactical interoperable communications plan for the Miami area.
Technical assistance representatives held meetings with each of the
Miami area public safety agencies to compile a regional communications
equipment inventory. Similarly, according to Louisville officials, the
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program held a 2-day
workshop on developing the tactical interoperable communications plan
for the Louisville area. Officials stated that this workshop
represented the first time that all relevant communications officials
and emergency responders were involved in a collaborative effort.
Guidance for the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program required each of
the high-risk UASI areas to plan and conduct a full-scale exercise to
validate the effectiveness of their tactical interoperable
communications plans. Full-scale exercises are the most complex type of
exercises, involving multiple agencies and jurisdictions in testing
plans, policies, and procedures. They are intended to be conducted in a
real-time, stressful environment that closely mirrors real events. DHS
required the exercises as a way to measure the progress each UASI has
made in improving interoperability and developed "scorecards" to
capture the results of the exercise.
However, while DHS provided extensive assistance to the urban areas in
developing their tactical interoperability communications plans, it
curtailed the exercises that were intended to validate the robustness
and completeness of each plan. Due to the complexity of these
exercises, the UASI areas were originally allotted 12 months to plan
and execute robust, full-scale exercises; DHS subsequently reduced this
to 5 months. DHS officials indicated that they accelerated the deadline
so that they could use the results as inputs into the interoperability
scorecards that they published in January 2007. To compensate for the
reduced time frame, DHS reduced the requirements of the full-scale
exercise, advising the UASI areas to limit the scope and size of their
activities.
In reducing the scope of their exercises, the UASI areas had to reduce
the extent to which they tested the robustness and effectiveness of
their interoperability plans. For example, of the four UASI areas we
visited, Portland, Miami, and New York City each reduced the scope of
their exercise so they could meet DHS's accelerated deadline. For
example, Portland had to significantly reduce the number of
participants from each of the counties participating in the exercise.
According to Portland officials, their exercise was not realistic for
responding to a real-world incident. Likewise, New York City officials
stated that they would have executed a higher quality exercise if DHS
had not reduced the time frame. Moreover, according to the 2007 grant
guidance, the UASI areas are not required to conduct any additional
exercises to further validate their plans.
Without robust exercises to validate tactical interoperability
communications plans, the UASI areas can only have limited confidence
in the plans' effectiveness, and thus the value of DHS's efforts may
continue to be limited. Similarly, the constraints placed on the
exercises means that DHS's scorecards of each of the UASI areas are
based on questionable data.
SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of
Government to Achieve Interoperability:
Although initiated in 2001, the SAFECOM program has made limited
progress in improving communications interoperability at all levels of
government. The program has not addressed state and local
interoperability with federal agencies, a critical element to
interoperable communications that is required by the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Further, while the program
has focused on helping states and localities improve interoperable
communications by developing tools and guidance for their use,
SAFECOM's progress in this area has been limited in the selected
states. Specifically, officials from selected states and localities
often found that the tools and planning assistance provided by the
program were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the
program had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked
to poor program management practices, including the lack of a plan for
improving interoperability across all levels of government and
inadequate performance measures that would provide feedback to better
attune tools and assistance with first responder needs. Until SAFECOM
adopts these key management practices, its progress is likely to remain
limited.
SAFECOM Was Established to Improve Interoperable Communications at All
Levels of Government:
When SAFECOM was established in 2001, as one of the Office of
Management and Budget's 25 electronic government initiatives[Footnote
16] under the management of the Department of the Treasury, its goals
were to (1) achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the
nation, (2) achieve federal to state/local interoperability, and (3)
achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation. Like the
other e-government initiatives, the program was expected to achieve its
goals within 18 to 24 months. As we reported in 2004, these are
challenging tasks that will take many years to fully accomplish, and
the program had made very limited progress at the time of our
review.[Footnote 17]
Since 2001, the management and goals of the program have changed
several times. Most recently, in 2003, the SAFECOM program was
transferred to the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within
the Directorate of Science and Technology in DHS. Its goals included
increasing interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and
state public safety agencies, and increasing the number of states that
have initiated or completed statewide plans.[Footnote 18] Program
officials now estimate that a minimum level of interoperability will
not occur until 2008, and it is unknown when full interoperability will
occur.
In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 required DHS to establish a program to enhance public safety
interoperable communications at all levels of government, including
federal, as well as state and local governments.[Footnote 19] SAFECOM
has been designated as the program responsible for carrying out this
requirement.
SAFECOM Has Not Taken Action to Address Interoperability with Federal
First Responders:
While SAFECOM is required to improve interoperable communications at
all levels of government, the objectives that the program has been
working toward do not include improving interoperability between
federal agencies and state and local agencies. For example, when
conducting their baseline national survey of first responders to
determine the current level of interoperability, program officials
included state and local officials, but not federal officials. The
survey included an extensive list of questions in which respondents
were asked to rate interoperability (1) with other disciplines, (2)
with other jurisdictions, and (3) between state and local governments.
Respondents were also asked at the end of the survey to list federal
agencies they interoperate with; however, no effort was made to gauge
the level of interoperability with the federal government, as had been
done for other disciplines and jurisdictions and between state and
local governments.
As a result, SAFECOM has not addressed a variety of problems involving
interoperability between federal and state and local agencies.
According to first responders, these difficulties arise when trying to
establish interoperable communication between federal and state and
local agencies:
* Uncoordinated interoperability investments. The Departments of
Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury are developing the Integrated
Wireless Network (IWN) to create a consolidated federal wireless
communications service for federal public safety and law enforcement
agencies. The level of interoperability that state and local first
responders will have with federal first responders on this network is
unknown.
* Frequency incompatibilities. The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, which manages frequencies used by federal
agencies, and the Federal Communications Commission, which manages
frequencies used by state and local governments, have established
conflicting time frames for when federal agencies and state and local
agencies need to implement narrowband systems.[Footnote 20] Further,
according to an Associate Chief of DHS's Office of Border Patrol, when
federal communications networks are configured to narrowband, federal
agencies could have difficulty interoperating with local wideband
systems unless special radios are procured that can operate both on the
wideband and narrowband systems.
* Use of encryption. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), use encryption[Footnote 21] to secure their radio
communications. Encryption can be vitally important in preserving the
safety and security of their officers. However, they have not developed
procedures for sharing the keys to decrypt the communication with state
or local first responders in order to be able to communicate with them.
* Unclear coordination procedures. There is uncertainty within the
first responder community regarding the allowable level of coordination
and collaboration between federal agencies and state and local
agencies. For example, while the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration eliminated its requirement that state and
local officials obtain written permission to use federal frequencies in
May 2006, FBI officials that we interviewed were unaware that they were
allowed to share their frequencies without written permission.
In lieu of having communications systems that enable direct
interoperability between federal first responders and state and local
first responders, first responders have resorted to alternative means
of communicating. For example, state or local agencies may loan radios
to federal first responders or physically pair a federal first
responder with a state or local responder so they can share information
and relay it back to their agencies. While approaches such as these may
be effective in certain situations, they reflect a general lack of
planning for communications interoperability. In many cases, using
"work-arounds" such as these could reduce the efficiency and
effectiveness of the overall public safety response to an incident.
SAFECOM officials stated that the program's focus has been on state and
local agencies because they consider them to be a higher priority.
Further, while they stated that it would be possible for federal
agencies to make use of some of the planning tools being developed
primarily for state and local agencies, SAFECOM has not developed any
tools that directly address interoperability with federal agencies.
However, interoperability with federal first responders remains an
important element in achieving nationwide interoperability and is part
of SAFECOM's tasking under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004. Until a federal coordinating entity such as
SAFECOM makes a concerted effort to promote federal interoperability
with other governmental entities, overall progress in improving
communications interoperability will remain limited.
SAFECOM Tools and Assistance Have Had Limited Impact on State and Local
Agencies:
In addition to supporting development of the Project 25 suite of
interoperability standards (discussed in a later section of this
report), SAFECOM's activities have focused primarily on providing
planning tools to state and local governments. However, based on our
review of four states and selected localities, SAFECOM's progress in
achieving its goals of helping these states and localities improve
interoperable communications has been limited.
Several state and local officials did not find the tools and guidance
useful. For example, of the 10 location[Footnote 22]s we visited that
were aware of the tools and guidance, 6 had not used the programs'
Statement of Requirements or its Public Safety Architecture Framework.
Additionally, 3 of the 4 states we reviewed had not used its Statewide
Communication Interoperability Planning Methodology to develop a
statewide communication plan. Further, officials from 4 of the 15
jurisdictions we reviewed were unaware that the SAFECOM program existed
or that it provided interoperability guidance.
SAFECOM's Interoperability Continuum was the most widely used and
recognized of its tools. Seven of the 15 states and localities we
visited indicated that they used the continuum to assess their
interoperability status and plan improvements. Another initiative that
had a significant impact was the Regional Communications
Interoperability Pilot. Officials from Kentucky--one of the two states
that participated in the pilot--indicated that the pilot was very
helpful in facilitating communications planning by identifying relevant
stakeholders and bringing those stakeholders together for extended
discussions about interoperability. And in Nevada, this program
resulted in documentation of suggested near-term and long-term goals
for improving interoperability.
However, the SAFECOM tools that were not widely used represent a
significant investment of resources by DHS. For example, program
officials said that they spent $9.2 million developing the Statement of
Requirements and $2.7 million developing the Public Safety Architecture
Framework.
State and local officials provided the following reasons for the
limited utilization of SAFECOM tools:
* The tools and guidance are too abstract and do not provide practical
implementation guidance on specific issues. For instance, the Statement
of Requirements focuses on functional requirements based on textbook
definitions of a variety of interoperable communication subjects, such
as public safety communication needs, public safety roles and
functions, and the levels of operability and interoperability for each
major public safety discipline. SAFECOM officials indicated that the
Statement of Requirements was meant to be a forward-looking document
unconstrained by the limitations of current technology. However, states
and localities must work to improve interoperability with technology
that is currently available, and the Statement of Requirements does not
describe specific technologies, infrastructure, or business models that
state and local agencies can refer to when making key decisions
regarding improvements to their communication systems. Additionally,
neither the Statement of Requirements nor the Public Safety
Architecture Framework identifies specific actions a state or local
agency can take to make improvements.
* The documents are lengthy and hard to use as reference tools. For
example, the two published volumes of the Public Safety Architecture
Framework are approximately 270 pages combined and contain complex
information about topics such as the elements and subelements of
communication systems and their relationships to each other and to the
environment. Officials indicated that they do not have the time to
examine and analyze long reports that they believed contained limited
useful information. According to SAFECOM officials, they plan to
address this concern by publishing a third volume to guide public
safety agency officials through the process of developing a
communications system architecture. However, even with additional
guidance, the framework will remain lengthy and complex.
* Awareness of SAFECOM and its tools has not reached all state and
local agencies. Program officials indicated that they take steps to try
to reach out to the broad first responder community, such as by
publishing articles in major police and fire periodicals, presenting at
events covering communications interoperability, and publishing a
quarterly newsletter on interoperability issues called Interoperability
Today. However, despite these efforts, several localities that we
visited were completely unfamiliar with the program and/or the
assistance it provides.
Figure 3 identifies which of SAFECOM's tools, guidance, or other
assistance were used by officials at the locations we visited.
Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of SAFECOM data.
Note: We visited 15 locations; however, Franklin County, Kentucky, did
not indicate which tools they use.
[End of figure]
Recently, SAFECOM has focused more on specific implementation issues,
creating tools such as a writing guide for developing memorandums of
understanding that could be used to establish agreements on the sharing
of communication systems across agencies and jurisdictions. Officials
have also developed a guide for writing standard operating procedures,
which could be used to prepare written guidelines for incident
response. Because these tools were still new, we did not receive
assessments of them from state and local officials.
Lack of Program Plan and Performance Measures Has Contributed to
SAFECOM's Limited Impact:
One factor contributing to the limited impact that SAFECOM has had on
improving communications interoperability is that its activities have
not been guided by a program plan. A program plan is a critical tool to
ensure a program meets its goals and responsibilities. Such a tool is
used to align planned activities with program goals and objectives, as
well as define how progress in meeting the goals will be measured,
compared, and validated. For example, a program plan could be a useful
tool for ensuring that key program goals--such as promoting
interoperability across all levels of government including federal
responders--are being addressed. In addition, a program plan would
provide the structure to help plan tools and guidance that would
address the greatest needs. Further, a program plan could be used to
delineate performance measures, which are essential to determining the
effectiveness of a program and for identifying the areas of a program
that need additional attention.
Rather than using a program plan to guide their activities, SAFECOM
officials stated that they develop tools and guidance based on a list
of suggestions obtained from first responders. The SAFECOM Executive
Committee--a steering group comprised of public safety officials from
across the country--prioritizes the list of suggestions, but this
prioritization has not been used to develop a plan. Instead, program
officials have made ad hoc decisions regarding which suggestions to
implement based on executive committee input, as well as the difficulty
of implementation. While this approach incorporates a degree of
prioritization from first responders, it does not provide the structure
and traceability of a program plan.
Program officials have established six performance measures[Footnote
23] to assess progress, including the percentage of fire, emergency
medical services, and law enforcement organizations that have
established informal interoperability agreements with other public
safety organizations; the percentage of public safety agencies that
report using interoperability to some degree in their operations; the
percentage of states that have completed statewide interoperability
plans; the percentage of grant programs for public safety
communications that include SAFECOM guidance; and the amount of
reduction in the cycle time for national interoperability standards
development. However, several key aspects of the program are not being
measured. For example, one of the program's goals is to increase the
development and adoption of standards. However, the only associated
performance measure is reduction in the cycle time for national
interoperability standards development--not the extent to which
adoption of standards has increased or whether interoperability is
being facilitated. Also, in assessing the growth of interoperable
communications capacity at local, tribal, and state public safety
agencies, SAFECOM's measures--the percentage of states that have
established informal interoperability agreements with other public
safety organizations and the percentage of public safety agencies that
report using interoperability to some degree in their operations --
addresses only two of the five areas that SAFECOM has defined as key to
improving interoperability (it does not assess improvements made in
governance, technology, or training). Moreover, none of the program's
measures assess the extent to which the first responder community finds
the tools and assistance helpful or the effectiveness of program
outreach initiatives. Consequently, measures of the effectiveness of
the program and areas for improvement are not being collected and are
not driving improvements in the program, contributing to its limited
impact. According to SAFECOM officials, by mid-2007, they plan to
establish a measure to assess customer satisfaction.
Until DHS develops and implements a program plan that includes goals
focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of government,
establishes performances measures that determine if key aspects of the
SAFECOM program are being achieved, and assesses the extent to which
the first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful,
the impact of its efforts to improve interoperable communications among
federal, state, and local agencies will likely remain limited.
Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards,
but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results:
Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable
interoperability among the communications products of different
vendors. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was
defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993
through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used
by a vendor to develop elements of a Project 25 compliant system. To
its credit, over the past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body
responsible for Project 25 has defined specifications for three
additional subsets of standards. However, ambiguities in the published
standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by
different vendors, and no compliance testing has been conducted to
ensure vendors' products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has
strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to
purchase Project 25 radios, which are substantially more expensive than
non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states and local agencies have
purchased fewer, more expensive radios, which still may not be
interoperable and thus may provide them with minimal additional
benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more
flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states and
localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that
their investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in
interoperability.
Until Recently, Progress in Developing Interoperability Standards Had
Been Slow:
Initial development of Project 25 began over 15 years ago. It took 4
years, from 1989 to 1993, to develop the standards that comprised the
first of eight interfaces, known as the common air interface. The
common air interface is one of the most critical elements of Project
25, and, therefore, efforts to develop standards for this interface
were initiated first. However, from 1993 through 2005, no additional
standards were developed that could be used by a vendor to develop
additional elements of a Project 25 compliant system.
Concerned about the slow development of Project 25 standards, the
conference committee on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2005,[Footnote 24] encouraged NIST and the Department of Justice
to work with SAFECOM to consider the issuance of interim standards for
interoperable communication systems. According to NIST officials, they,
along with their federal partners, have established a process for
developing interim standards and plan to institute it if progress in
the development of Project 25 standards is not sufficiently
accelerated. Industry representatives and public safety practitioners
responded to these events by increasing the pace and scope of their
standards development activities. As a result of their efforts, in the
past 2 years, significant progress has been made in defining three
additional critical interfaces: the fixed station subsystem interface,
the console subsystem interface, and the inter-RF subsystem interface.
NIST officials indicated that the focus has been on these interfaces
because they will add significant functionality to the overall set of
Project 25 standards.
Table 4 shows the progress that has been made on each of the eight
Project 25 interfaces as of August 2006. Figure 4 shows the
relationships among these interfaces.
Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces:
Interface: Common air interface;
Description: Defines the wireless access between mobile and portable
radios and between the portable and mobile radios and the fixed or base
station radios;
Status: This interface is considered the most mature of the eight
interfaces; however, parts of it are currently being revised to clarify
ambiguities. A full set of product compliance tests is not yet
available;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Currently available.
Interface: Subscriber data peripheral interface;
Description: Characterizes the signaling for data transfer that must
take place between radios and the data devices connected to the radios;
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other
interfaces. In addition, there are no tests currently in place for this
interface to test product compliance;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Limited availability of
products that contain proprietary components.
Interface: Fixed station subsystem interface;
Description: Describes the signaling and messages between the radio
frequency subsystem and the fixed/base station subsystem and between
the console subsystem and the fixed/base station subsystem;
Status: The initial version of standards has been developed for this
interface; however, more work remains before this interface will be
completed, such as developing compliance testing standards;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007.
Interface: Console subsystem interface;
Description: Defines the signaling between the radio frequency
subsystem and the console subsystem;
Status: The initial version of the standards is in the final stages of
completion and is expected to be published in early 2007. Compliance
testing standards are under development;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007-2008.
Interface: Network management interface;
Description: Allows administrators to control and monitor the network
fault management and network performance management;
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other
interfaces. In addition, there are no standards currently in place for
this interface to test products for compliance;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: To be determined.
Interface: Data network interface;
Description: Describes the radio frequency subsystem's connections to
computers, data networks, external data sources, etc;
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other
interfaces. In addition, there are no standards currently in place for
this interface to test products for Project 25 compliance;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Limited availability of
products that contain proprietary components.
Interface: Telephone interconnect interface;
Description: Allows users to connect through the public switched
telephone network using their radios rather than cellular phones;
Status: Standards have been developed for the interface; however, work
remains before this interface will be completed, such as developing
compliance testing standards;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: To be determined.
Interface: Inter-RF subsystem interface;
Description: Allows users in one system to communicate with users in
another system;
Status: The initial version of this standard was published in mid 2006.
Compliance testing standards are under development;
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007.
Source: GAO analysis of NIST and TIA data.
[A] This information is based on NIST's working knowledge of Project 25
product lines. NIST has not performed a worldwide inventory of Project
25 products.
[End of table]
Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: GAO analysis of TIA and NIST data.
[End of figure]
Implementation of Systems Based on Incomplete Project 25 Standards Has
Been Problematic:
There are a number of obstacles hindering effective implementation of
first responder communications systems based on Project 25 standards:
* Standards are incomplete or not well-defined: NIST officials have
stated that key standards that have been defined for several of the
eight interfaces have not been adequately specified, allowing vendors
to develop products based on inconsistent interpretations. For example,
Project 25 manufacturers have determined that the specifications for
the conventional and trunked mode operations of the common air
interface--which is considered to be the most mature of the eight
interfaces--were vague and led to inconsistent interpretations. More
specifically, between 2003 and 2005, NIST conducted interoperability
tests on the conventional operations mode of six different
manufacturers' radios and found that none of them passed all aspects of
the tests. In addition, according to NIST officials, in 2005, a
manufacturer conducted interoperability tests on the trunked operations
mode of three manufacturers' radios and also found that none of them
passed the tests. More recently, in 2006, a manufacturer conducting
interoperability tests found improvements in the consistency of other
manufacturers' interpretations. However, according to NIST officials,
ambiguities still need to be resolved in this interface. Additionally,
many options available on radios are not specified in the standards,
allowing vendors to address these capabilities with unique or
proprietary technologies, which can cause interoperability problems. As
a result, while recent tests have shown improvements, vendors have
developed incompatible, proprietary products rather than interoperable,
standards-based products.
* Lack of compliance testing has limited product interoperability:
According to NIST officials, formal peer-review testing is necessary to
ensure compliance with standards and interoperability among products.
We have previously reported[Footnote 25] that independent testing and
evaluation of commercial products and accreditation of the laboratories
that perform the test and evaluations can give agencies increased
assurance that the products will perform as vendors claim. However,
since 1995, Project 25 radios have been marketed to and purchased by
federal, state, and local agencies without any formal compliance
testing to validate vendors' claims of compliance with the Project 25
standards. As a result, recent testing has shown that products labeled
"Project 25 compliant" do not necessarily interoperate.
* State and local agencies do not know how to select Project 25
products: With no formal compliance testing for Project 25 products,
state and local agencies have limited means to determine if the
products they purchase are compliant with the standards. Therefore, in
absence of any other information, agencies have relied on information
provided by vendors. Further, vendor products have many different
levels of functionality, and agency officials may not understand their
specific needs well enough to purchase equipment tailored to their
specific requirements that does not include costly functionality that
they do not need. However, comparative information about product
functionality and typical first responder requirements is not currently
in a centralized location, making it difficult for officials to be able
to judge which products are most appropriate for their agency's needs.
For example, according to one manufacturer, public works agencies and
schools would likely need radios with less functionality, while
firefighters would likely need a midrange radio with more features, and
a command center or federal law enforcement agency might need the most
expensive radios with the greatest number of features. Because of the
complexity of product options, agencies may not always be making well-
informed decisions on the purchase of radios.
* Complete Project 25 systems can be prohibitively expensive: Project
25 radios are significantly more expensive than conventional analog
radios, and while state and local agencies are paying two to three
times more for Project 25 radios, they are not always able to take
advantage of the intended interoperability benefits because they cannot
afford to procure complete systems. Project 25 radios for first
responders can range in price from about $1,000 to about $5,000. Most
Project 25 radios used by first responders cost around $2,500.
According to officials, a conventional analog radio suitable for first
responder work generally costs about two to three times less than
Project 25 radios. Benefits of using Project 25 radios, such as
interoperability among multiple vendors' equipment, cannot be fully
realized until a complete Project 25 system (base stations, repeaters,
and radios) is implemented. Fully replacing an existing radio system
with a Project 25 system is very expensive. For example, Arlington
County, Virginia--a relatively small county--is acquiring and
implementing a full Project 25 environment for $16.8 million. Many
localities do not have the funding to make such a large investment.
Nevertheless, since 2003, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local
agencies to use grant funding from the agency to purchase Project 25
compliant equipment. DHS grant guidance--which was developed by
SAFECOM--states that all new voice system purchases should be
compatible with the Project 25 suite of standards to ensure that
equipment or systems are capable of interoperating with other public
safety land mobile equipment or systems. If a grant applicant is
interested in purchasing non-Project 25 compliant equipment, the
applicant must demonstrate in its application that the system or
equipment being proposed will lead to enhanced interoperability.
While states and localities have purchased Project 25 radios at the
direction of DHS, there is little indication that these radios have
enhanced interoperability. Most jurisdictions we visited were not using
the Project 25 capabilities, such as interoperating with different
vendors' radios, since they had not fully replaced their existing radio
communications infrastructure with a complete Project 25 system.
Specifically, of the 11 localities we visited, 8 were buying Project 25
radios and, of these, 7 were not using the Project 25 capabilities of
the radios. Thus, as a result of the DHS requirement to buy Project 25
equipment, agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios with
little or no additional benefit to date. Table 5 shows a sample of
spending by localities on Project 25 radios and their use of the
Project 25 capabilities.
Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases:
Locality: Lee County, Florida;
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 2,056;
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $4,305,850;
Average Price per radio: $2,094;
Using Project 25 capabilities: No.
Locality: Albany County, New York;
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 91;
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $120,879;
Average Price per radio: $1,328;
Using Project 25 capabilities: No.
Locality: Louisville, Kentucky;
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 52;
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $234,099;
Average Price per radio: $4,502;
Using Project 25 capabilities: Yes.
Locality: Jackson County, Oregon;
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 169;
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $571,338;
Average Price per radio: $3,380;
Using Project 25 capabilities: No.
Source: GAO analysis of localities' data.
Note: This table represents Project 25 radio purchases for which data
was available and, therefore, may not include all Project 25 radio
purchases by these localities.
[End of table]
Efforts Are Under Way to Mitigate Project 25 Problems:
To address the lack of well-defined standards, users and manufacturers
have been revising the standards for the conventional and trunked mode
operations of the common air interface to clarify ambiguities. To
address the issue of a lack of formal compliance testing, SAFECOM,
NIST, and the Project 25 steering committee, began developing a peer
compliance assessment program for Project 25 products in April 2005.
This compliance assessment program is to use various vendors' approved
laboratories[Footnote 26] to test Project 25 systems through a set of
agreed-upon tests that will validate that the systems from various
vendors can successfully interoperate and meet conformance and
performance requirements. According to NIST, the vendors will be
expected to conduct the tests in compliance with a handbook on general
testing procedures and requirements, which NIST is preparing to
publish. The assessment program is to be implemented in three phases,
as described in table 6.
Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment
Program:
Stage: Stage I;
Description: NIST is to develop a formal laboratory approval process
for manufacturers to conduct compliance testing and a process handbook;
Conduct initial common air interface testing; NIST and its partners
will develop an automated test software suite to facilitate Project 25
performance testing, which will be made available for use by test
laboratories and manufacturers. Subscriber units and base stations will
also be evaluated for performance;
Status: NIST is working to finalize the formal laboratory approval
process, and the process handbook. Parts of the trunked
interoperability test standard for the common air interface are
complete. Informal testing is expected to begin by March 2007. Formal
testing is expected to being by mid- 2007; The automated test software
suite to facilitate Project 25 common air interface performance testing
is expected to be available by early 2007; Other aspects of the trunked
mode for the common air interface are being revised and, therefore,
these aspects will not be tested until such revisions are made.
Stage: Stage II;
Description: Test procedures will be developed and executed that will
demonstrate the interoperability of Project 25 radios in both trunked
and conventional modes of operation;
Status: Development and completion of remaining test procedures for the
common air interface are contingent upon completion of revisions to
parts of this interface; The conventional mode interoperability test
standard is expected to be available in mid-2007.
Stage: Stage III;
Description: Development of test procedures for the other critical
Project 25 interfaces;
Status: Conformance test procedures are currently being developed for
the inter-RF subsystem interface and the fixed station subsystem
interface; Performance test procedures are currently being developed
for the inter-RF subsystem interface and the console subsystem
interface; In addition, the interoperability test standards for the
inter-RF subsystem interface are in the initial stages of development.
Source: GAO analysis of NIST data.
[End of table]
Additionally, SAFECOM has issued guidance to supplement the 2007 DHS
grant guidance stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, grant
recipients purchasing Project 25 equipment must obtain documented
evidence from the manufacturer that the equipment has been tested and
passed all available compliance assessment test procedures for
performance, conformance, and interoperability. The guidance also
specifies the aspects of Project 25 equipment that are available for
testing and that should be tested before a public safety agency
acquires the equipment. However, as of January 2007, only limited
aspects of the common air interface had been defined fully enough to
conduct interoperability tests. Further, NIST's testing procedures
handbook was not yet complete and thus vendors were unable to conduct
testing. According to NIST officials, it has not been determined when
the full set of conformance, performance, and interoperability tests
for the common air interface will be available.
NIST and SAFECOM are also working on ways to help agencies make
informed decisions when purchasing Project 25 radios to help them
acquire features that are Project 25 compliant. Specifically, NIST and
SAFECOM have developed a decision tree to help guide officials in
selecting the appropriate Project 25 capabilities. NIST has also helped
to develop a new process for posting test results online so that
potential buyers can have ready access to this information.
While efforts are under way to address several of these issues, others
remain. Specifically, DHS continues to strongly encourage state and
local agencies to purchase Project 25 compliant equipment even though
compliance testing is not yet available. Without flexibility to address
their needs with equipment that is the most effective, economical, and
meets defined interoperability requirements aligned with a statewide
plan, states and localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot
be assured that their investments are likely to result in meaningful
gains in interoperability.
Conclusions:
DHS grants, along with its technical assistance, have helped to make
improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects.
However, in selected states, strategic planning has generally not been
used to guide investments or provide assistance to improve
communications interoperability across all levels of government.
Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide their
investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national plan
was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while UASI
officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had been
helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value in
measuring progress. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to
improving interoperable communications, such as including in its
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with
statewide communications plans, and conducts a thorough assessment to
identify strategies to mitigate obstacles between federal agencies and
state and local agencies, states and localities are likely to make
limited progress in improving interoperability. Additionally, until DHS
plans another round of full-scale exercises that provide UASI areas
with sufficient planning time, the robustness and effectiveness of UASI
plans will be limited.
The SAFECOM program has had a limited impact on improving
communications interoperability among federal, state, and local
agencies. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to poor
program management practices, such as the lack of a plan for improving
interoperability across all levels of government, and inadequate
performance measures to fully gauge the effectiveness of its tools and
assistance. The recent establishment of the OEC creates an opportunity
for DHS to improve program management practices among formerly separate
component organizations, including SAFECOM. Without a program plan for
SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability programs that specifically
addresses improvements to interoperable communications from federal to
state and local agencies, and includes measures to assess the
usefulness of its efforts, the effectiveness of the program is likely
to remain limited.
While development of a comprehensive suite of standards such as Project
25 is critical to achieving interoperability among different
manufacturers' products, such a suite is not yet fully developed.
Further, ambiguities in published standards have led to
incompatibilities among products made by different vendors and, to
date, no compliance testing has been conducted to ensure that vendors'
products interoperate. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state
and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25
compliant equipment. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to give
states and localities the flexibility to address their communications
equipment needs effectively, economically, and in a way that meets
interoperability requirements as defined in their statewide plans,
states and local agencies are likely to continue to purchase expensive
equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better ensure that progress is made in improving interoperable
communications among federal, state, and local first responders, we
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
five actions:
* assess how states' grant requests support their statewide
communications plans and include the assessment as a factor in making
DHS grant allocation decisions;
* plan for new full-scale exercises for UASI areas that provides local
officials with sufficient time to develop and implement exercises to
validate the robustness and effectiveness of their tactical
interoperable communications plans;
* develop and implement a program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC
interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving
interoperability among all levels of government;
* include in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC
interoperability programs quantifiable performance measures that can be
used to determine the extent to which each of the goals have been
accomplished and that can be used to assess the effectiveness and
usefulness of SAFECOM tools, assistance, and outreach, and make
improvements based on the feedback; and:
* modify grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing
communications equipment until standards for completed interfaces have
been fully defined and products have been certified compliant.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and
the Director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the
Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in
appendixes III and IV. Commerce provided updated information and
technical comments to help ensure the information in the report is
accurately perceived. We have incorporated these comments as
appropriate.
In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two,
stated that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one
recommendation.
Regarding our recommendation that DHS develop and implement a program
plan for SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving
interoperability among all levels of government, the Director indicated
that DHS agrees with the intent of the recommendation and stated that
the department is currently working to develop a program plan.
However, DHS raised concern about the perceived implication that no
action had been taken. It stated that SAFECOM has always had goals for
improving interoperability among local, state, tribal, and federal
emergency response agencies. Our review showed that while the program
has had broad goals that include federal, as well as state and local
agencies, its specific program goals and activities have not focused on
improving interoperable communications between federal and other
agencies. For example, one of the program's goals is to increase
interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and state
public safety agencies, not federal agencies. Thus, it will be
important for DHS to develop and implement a program plan that includes
goals focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of
government.
DHS agreed with our recommendation to include quantifiable performance
measures in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability
programs. DHS indicated that it intends to establish such measures by
the third quarter of 2007.
DHS stated that it is deferring comments on two recommendations: (1)
assess how states' grant requests support their statewide
communications plans and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise for
UASI areas to validate their interoperable communications plans.
DHS disagreed with our recommendation that it modify grant guidance to
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until
standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined and products
have been certified compliant with all aspects of the standards. The
Director stated that the recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend
its interoperability grant guidance until after the entire Project 25
suite of standards is complete and could undermine remaining
negotiations between the public safety community and equipment
manufacturers. We agree that development of a comprehensive suite of
standards such as Project 25 is critical to achieving interoperability
among different manufacturers' products. We also agree that not all
interfaces need to be fully defined before agencies can begin acquiring
Project 25 products; thus we have clarified the recommendation to
reflect this. However, we are not recommending that the public safety
community be prohibited from acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus
we do not believe negotiations with equipment manufacturers would be
undermined. Until critical interfaces are better defined and products
have been certified compliant, DHS should allow state and local
agencies the flexibility to purchase whatever products they can obtain
that offer the best value and performance for their needs.
DHS also stated that it estimates that the Project 25 standards will be
complete within the next 18 to 24 months, and stated that fiscal year
2007 grant funding will be spent by local public safety agencies not in
fiscal year 2007 but in subsequent years. We have modified the
discussion of this issue in the report to reflect this information.
However, as previously stated, much additional work remains to be
accomplished.
Additionally, DHS stated that our report should include other major
programs that focus on interoperability among federal responders, such
as the newly created Office of Emergency Communications within DHS, the
Integrated Wireless Network, the Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program, and the Federal Partnership for Interoperable
Communications. However, our report does discuss the first three of
these. The primary purpose of the Federal Partnership for Interoperable
Communications is to serve as a coordinating body to address technical
and operational activities within the federal wireless community; it
has limited applicability to state and local interoperability.
Finally, DHS raised concern with our view that SAFECOM had mistakenly
made local, tribal, and state emergency responders its highest
priority. DHS stated that when SAFECOM was established as one of the
electronic government initiatives, it was placed within the government-
to-government portfolio. According to DHS, state and local government
agencies are the primary customers of this portfolio. However,
according to OMB, the goal of the government-to-government portfolio is
to forge new partnerships among all levels of government, not just
state and local. Additionally, as we have previously stated, when
SAFECOM was initially established, one of its major goals was to
achieve federal to state/local interoperability. However, it is no
longer a goal for SAFECOM. DHS also stated that since 90 percent of the
public safety infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by
local jurisdictions, state and local interoperability is a higher
priority. However, our review has shown that in major incidents such as
a terrorist attack, a major hurricane, or wildland fire, federal,
state, and local first responders will need to interoperate in order to
respond effectively to the incident. Therefore, interoperability with
federal first responders should be included as a key element in the
department's strategy for improving interoperable communications
throughout the nation.
DHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and Commerce and other interested congressional committees and
subcommittees. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at
koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
Signed by:
Keith A. Rhodes:
Chief Technologist:
Director, Center for Technology and Engineering:
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance have helped
to improve interoperable communications in selected states, (2) the
progress the SAFECOM program has made in improving interoperable
communications, and (3) the progress that has been made in the
development and implementation of interoperable communications
standards.
To determine the extent to which DHS funding and technical assistance
helped to improve interoperable communication in these states, we
reviewed documentation and interviewed state and local officials from
selected states.
We selected four states as case studies, using the following criteria:
* All of the states must have received at least an average amount of
funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005.
* One of the states must have received over $100 million of grant
funding for interoperable communications from DHS.
* One of the states must have received assistance from SAFECOM in
applying the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning
Methodology.
* One of the states must have had an Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) area involved in DHS's RapidCom program.
* One of the states must border another country.
* At least one of the states must be one of the top 10 states that
regularly faces wildland fires.
* At least one of the states must be one of the top states that
regularly faces other large natural disasters, such as hurricanes or
earthquakes.
We selected localities from each state to visit, which included (1) the
UASI region which received the most funding from DHS, (2) the non-UASI
county that received the largest amount of DHS funding, and (3) the
county and city where the state capital is located.[Footnote 27] From
each of these states and localities, we obtained and reviewed
documentation such as grant funding amounts, Tactical Interoperability
Communication Plans, exercise reports, and communication system
documentation. We also met with interoperability committee members and
first responders. Additionally, we obtained and analyzed documentation
from, and met with DHS officials who are responsible for monitoring the
use of DHS funds in each of these states.
To determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable
communications, we reviewed SAFECOM documentation such as its Statewide
Communication Interoperability Planning Methodology, Public Safety
Architecture Framework, and Statement of Requirements. We also analyzed
program management documentation (such as program goals, initiatives,
and performance measures), interviewed SAFECOM officials to discuss the
progress of the program, and interviewed state and local officials to
determine their use of SAFECOM tools and guidance. To obtain Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) information, we relied on interviews
conducted by another GAO team.
To determine progress in developing and implementing interoperable
communications standards, we obtained and reviewed documentation from
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) officials on
standards development such as status updates and recent testimonies.
Additionally, we reviewed documentation from states and localities to
determine the extent to which they are implementing Project 25 products
and spending on Project 25 products. We also met with officials from
NIST and representatives from communications equipment manufactures.
Because our objectives were focused on DHS efforts to improve
interoperable communications, we neither assessed programs in other
agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission or the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, nor reviewed issues
related to spectrum allocation.[Footnote 28]
We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area;
Tallahassee, Fort Myer, and Miami, Florida; Louisville, Frankfort, and
Mount Sterling, Kentucky; Albany, Syracuse, and Brooklyn, New York; and
Beaverton, Salem, and Medford, Oregon, from April 2006 to February
2007, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within Selected
States:
There is wide variation in the frequencies (i.e., very high frequency
(VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF)) and radio technologies (i.e.,
digital, analog, conventional, and trunked) that are used among
federal, state, and local agencies within each of the four states we
reviewed. A summary of communications systems and interoperability
initiatives in each of these four states follows.
Florida:
There are over 150 radio systems in use within the state of Florida. To
improve interoperability among these systems, Florida officials have
developed several centralized solutions that are used throughout the
state at all levels of government. Localities maintain their existing
communications systems, relying on Florida's statewide systems only
when they need to interoperate with another agency or jurisdiction.
According to DHS, Florida has received approximately $55.7[Footnote 29]
million in DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005
to improve interoperable communications.
Governance:
Florida's centralized approach entails making funding decisions through
a body (the Domestic Security Oversight Council) supported by a
hierarchy of communications-related committees that includes local
representation from each of the seven regions in the state. According
to state officials, for the statewide interoperability solutions,
Florida does not allocate DHS funding to local agencies; it takes on
the responsibility of centrally purchasing equipment to ensure that all
agencies and jurisdictions have equipment that is compatible. UASI
grants are awarded directly to the UASI areas; therefore, Florida does
not centrally manage those funds.
State Approach:
To improve the interoperability among the 150 disparate communications
systems throughout the state, Florida officials have developed the
following several statewide solutions:
* In 2003, the Domestic Security Oversight Council and its supporting
communication committees determined that it would not be economically
feasible to replace all existing systems in the state with one new
system. It therefore decided to develop a "backbone" system that could
connect with each of the existing systems. This system, referred to as
the Florida Interoperability Network, establishes network connections
between federal, state, and local dispatch centers across the state
(see fig. 5). It enables dispatchers to connect first responders on
disparate radio systems and frequencies to allow them to directly
communicate with one another. Existing independent systems are
maintained. According to state officials, as of January 2007, first
responders in 64 of Florida's 67 counties are able to have their
communications patched to each other as needed via the network.
Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on Florida data.
[End of figure]
Legend:
IP=Internet Protocol:
* As part of the Florida Interoperability Network, Florida officials
are also working to establish additional mutual aid channels that are
intended to provide radio service to first responders outside the range
of their agency's local system or when they need to communicate with
users not on their local systems. These channels are intended to expand
geographic coverage to ensure that, wherever they go, Florida's first
responders have radio communication capability. To this end, officials
are adding 428 tower sites to the existing 93 sites across the state.
* Florida also acquired and implemented a radio communications system
to serve law enforcement units of state agencies and to serve local
public safety agencies through a mutual aid channel. The Statewide Law
Enforcement Radio System provides state law enforcement officers with a
shared digital, trunked radio system that serves over 6,500 users with
14,000 radios in patrol cars, boats, motorcycles, and aircraft.
* Florida's first federally funded project was the Emergency Deployable
Interoperable Communications Systems. These are mobile systems that can
be deployed to a specific response area to patch together disparate
communications systems. According to state officials, these systems are
generally used in one of the following situations: (1) to tie different
radio systems together in an area that is not connected to the Florida
Interoperability Network, (2) to connect different radio systems
together if the network becomes inoperable, or (3) to tie disparate
radios together when assisting in an out-of-state incident, such as
Hurricane Katrina. Nine of these systems were purchased and deployed
throughout the state.
* Florida has seven Mutual Aid Radio Communications units in the state,
and officials are building an additional unit. The units are stand-
alone mobile interoperable communications networks. Unlike Emergency
Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, Mutual Aid Radio
Communications units include a cache of radios that can be distributed
to first responders, a tower, and a mobile repeater system, so no
patching needs to be done. These units are used when the local
communications systems become inoperable, such as when a hurricane
destroys the local communications infrastructure. The units provide
temporary infrastructure for a response area to maintain communication
during an incident.
Local Approach:
Florida localities vary in their approaches and the level of
interoperability within their regions. They utilize the statewide
solutions to supplement their existing systems. For example, the 35 to
40 different radio systems throughout the Miami UASI area have limited
direct interoperability. The Miami region relies on patching
mechanisms, including the Florida Interoperability Network, to provide
interoperable communications when needed. In contrast, according to
officials, government agencies within Lee County, with the exception of
the school board, utilize the same communications systems and,
therefore, are all directly interoperable. The level of
interoperability with surrounding counties varies. When they need to
communicate with neighboring jurisdictions or state first responders,
they utilize the interoperability network.
Kentucky:
While Kentucky first responders coordinate interoperability primarily
by sharing frequencies and establishing patches, the state is
establishing mutual aid channels to better enable responders on
different frequencies to communicate through patches. According to DHS,
from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, Kentucky received $50
million from DHS for interoperable communications.
Governance:
Kentucky's governance structure for interoperable communications is
organized centrally at the state level through the Kentucky Wireless
Interoperability Executive Committee. To ensure that the committee has
an awareness of initiatives across the state, all state agencies and
local government entities must present project plans for primary
wireless public safety voice or data communications systems for review
and recommendation by the committee, even if no state or federal
funding is used for the system. While the committee only has the
authority to decline or approve projects funded with state or federal
dollars, a large majority of local projects are financed through state
or federal funding.
State Approach:
Kentucky's strategy to improve interoperable communications in the near
term is to utilize statewide mutual aid channels that allow agencies on
different communication systems to tune into a dedicated frequency
shared among one or more public safety agencies. Kentucky also plans to
implement communications bridges to patch different systems together.
The mutual aid approach requires the deployment of three channels, one
for each frequency band that Kentucky public safety agencies currently
use. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies have
signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the mutual aid
channels. Other agencies that have not yet signed a memorandum are also
utilizing the channels.
Kentucky officials are also in the process of implementing a console-to-
console bridge solution that will allow dispatchers to patch users on
one frequency to users on another frequency (see fig. 6). For example,
a first responder using a lower frequency who needs to talk to a first
responder using a higher frequency would contact the Kentucky State
Police dispatch center to request a patch. The dispatcher would then
use a patching mechanism to patch the two channels so that the
responders could talk directly to each other. The solution is
operational in two of the three frequency bands and is nearing
completion in the third.
Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on Kentucky data.
[End of figure]
To supplement voice communications interoperability, Kentucky has
implemented a wireless data communications interoperability solution as
well. This solution provides functionality such as records management,
real-time crime coverage, real-time data collection, and instant
messaging. The system consists of approximately 165 base stations
throughout the state to supply continuous wireless coverage in most
regions. First responders use mobile data terminals to communicate with
each other and, in many cases, retrieve information from their agency's
database. Kentucky's mobile data network currently has coverage across
approximately 95 percent of the state's primary and secondary road
systems.
In the long term, the state officials intend to build a statewide
public safety communications and interoperability infrastructure. They
are in the process of completing a statewide baseline communications
study as an initial step in the planning phase. No further specific
initiatives and milestones have yet been identified for this project.
Local Approach:
Interoperability is typically coordinated at the city and county
levels. In the jurisdictions we visited, interoperability solutions
included planning in advance to program other frequencies into radios,
establishing patches through disparate communication systems through a
dispatch center, and swapping radios.
* In Louisville, Kentucky, both UHF and VHF systems are in use and,
when necessary, connected through patching mechanisms. Many responders
carry both a UHF and VHF radio in their vehicles. For major incidents,
a mobile vehicle with a repeater system can be deployed to connect
first responders. In addition, since 2000, Louisville has been
utilizing a wireless data communications interoperability solution that
includes 550 first responders in the Louisville metropolitan area.
* All local agencies within Franklin County use VHF systems; first
responders program each others' channels into their radios. Frankfort
and Franklin County use mutual aid channels when needed. First
responders have difficulty connecting to the Kentucky State Police, as
that agency recently switched to a digital, trunked communications
system. Currently, to connect to the state police, Frankfort and
Franklin police contact a dispatch center and request a patch to
Kentucky State Police.
* Montgomery County agencies use both UHF and VHF systems. First
responders within the county and in neighboring counties typically
program each others' channels into their radios. Communication with
state agencies varies, for example, fire and EMS agencies in Montgomery
County cannot communicate with their state counterparts at present,
whereas local police can communicate with the state police through
mutual aid channels, or in instances in which they have interoperable
radios.
New York:
New York is currently in the process of implementing a statewide system
that will connect all state agencies and offer connection services to
local agencies. This initiative is being funded by the state.
Localities continue to develop and maintain their own communication
systems and interoperability solutions. According to DHS, from fiscal
year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, New York State has received $145.5
million in grant funding for interoperable communications.
Governance:
New York has established a Statewide Interoperability Executive
Committee that is currently working to establish a state
interoperability plan. In addition, there are several different groups
throughout New York that are involved with interoperability at the
state and local level. According to state officials, the governance
structure limits the state's ability to mandate requirements to local
governments; therefore, individual counties and cities determine their
own interoperability requirements and have their own governance
structure in place for interoperable communications. The state,
however, determines priority investments and the localities must spend
grant money on these priority investments. Interoperable communications
was a priority investment for both grants for fiscal year 2006.
State Approach:
The state is currently in the process of deploying a Statewide Wireless
Network intended to provide an integrated mobile radio communications
network that links all state agencies and would be available to connect
participating local agencies (see figure 7). It will be a digital,
trunked radio system with both voice and data capabilities and will be
used in day-to-day operations, as well as large scale emergency
situations. The network is to interconnect radio sites across the state
through a "backbone network" based on Internet Protocol (IP). The
network is to operate on the 700 and 800 MHz frequencies, as well as
VHF frequencies in geographically challenging terrain, such as the
Adirondack and Catskill Mountains. Users operating on other frequencies
and with less advanced technology can be connected to the network
through a gateway.
Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on New York data.
[End of figure]
State agencies are required to be a part of the Statewide Wireless
Network, but local agencies may join on a volunteer basis. As
previously mentioned, according to state officials, they are limited in
their ability to require local agencies to utilize the network. Local
agencies will have the following three different interoperability
options:
* Full system partnership: the state will provide the base
infrastructure such as radio towers, and the agency will purchase IP-
addressable, digital, trunked radios, as well as any additional
repeaters to operate on the network.
* Interface/gateway partnership: allows local agencies to maintain
their own separate network and provides a connecting gateway between a
local agency's dispatch console and the network.
* Shared communication system infrastructure: states and localities
both use the same towers for their separate systems, but there is no
mechanism for patching communications between the state and local
systems.
New York is implementing the Statewide Wireless Network in several
phases and expects full implementation to be completed in September
2010.
Even though joining this state network is free, localities need to buy
digital, trunked, and IP-addressable radios to participate directly,
and additional infrastructure such as repeaters to get complete
coverage in urban areas and buildings.
Local Approach:
Throughout the state of New York, many different communications systems
exist. Each area has developed its own methods aimed at improving
interoperability. Additionally, localities generally do not include the
Statewide Wireless Network as part of their local approach to improving
interoperable communications. As of December 2006, one agency in New
York City and only 7 of the 62 counties in New York have partnered with
the network to be full system users. Twenty-five counties have agreed
to connect through a gateway.
* In the New York City UASI area, the police department maintains six
channels for citywide interoperability. Any agency can use these
channels by signing a memorandum of understanding and ensuring that
they meet the necessary technical requirements. Additional
interoperability strategies used by the New York City UASI include
using a federal interoperability channel and utilizing and deploying
mobile patching devices to connect disparate systems at an incident
site. In addition, New York City is working to develop the City-wide
Mobile Wireless Network, which is intended to provide police and fire
first responders with high-speed data access to support large file
transfers, including federal and state anticrime and antiterrorism
databases, fingerprints, and maps. Further, the city has implemented a
regional wide-area interoperability system that is New York City's
primary interoperability network for first responders in the city. It
is currently being expanded to include first responders in Nassau,
Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, and parts of New Jersey.
* Agencies in Albany County typically interoperate by programming the
frequencies of other agencies into their radios, including agencies in
neighboring counties. The county also has a patching mechanism that can
connect different radio networks during an emergency. To improve its
interoperability and connect the county to neighboring counties, Albany
County is currently in the process of developing a countywide system.
This system will use gateways to connect existing systems that operate
on different frequency bands and allow all public safety responders
within the county to communicate with any other responder in Albany
County regardless of the radio system or technology used. Albany is
also currently developing a fiber optic system that will connect all 12
Public Safety Access Points in the county.
* Onondaga County relies on dispatchers to connect first responders.
All dispatching for Onondaga County is centralized at the county's 911
call center. To improve its interoperability, Onondaga County is
currently working to implement a countywide digital system that will
connect all county agencies.
Oregon:
Oregon is currently in the process of planning a statewide system to
connect all state agencies and provide a means for local agencies to be
patched to users on the statewide system. Localities continue to
develop and maintain their own communication systems and
interoperability solutions. According to DHS, Oregon has received $53.4
million from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 in grant funding
to improve interoperable communications.
Governance:
Oregon has a State Interoperability Executive Council to centrally
manage Oregon's interoperable communications. This body is composed of
state and local representatives. This committee requires that each
county prepare a communications plan. Additionally, the committee is in
the process of developing a statewide interoperable communications plan
that incorporates all the county plans.
State Approach:
Most state agencies are currently using VHF and UHF analog,
conventional radio systems, which are in some cases 30 years old and in
need of major repairs and upgrades. Oregon state agencies experience
significant coverage gaps in their existing communications systems due
to a lack of transmission towers. Additionally, these state systems are
not always interoperable with federal or local systems.
In the absence of shared radio systems among federal, state, and local
first responder agencies, Oregon's state agencies use various
alternative approaches to establish interoperable communications with
agencies they work with on a regular basis, such as using a dispatcher
or patching devices to establish connections between disparate radio
systems, and lending radios to first responders from other agencies.
Due to the deteriorating status of the Oregon's state agencies'
communication systems, State Interoperability Executive Council
officials have been working with contractors to develop a concept for a
new state system. The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is to be
a Project 25, trunked, digital radio network that will rely on an IP
interface to interoperate with state agencies' subsystems. Plans for
the interoperability network are to allow the majority of state
agencies to operate on a unified trunked system while supporting
conventional operations where and when required. These officials plan
to issue a contract to a vendor by October 2007 and implement the first
phase of the network by October 2009.
The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is intended to be the
primary system for state agencies; local agencies will be expected to
maintain their existing systems as their primary systems and use the
network as their secondary system. A patching mechanism would be
established to allow local agencies to be connected to state agencies,
as well as allow them to be connected to other local agencies that they
do not already have interoperability. Figure 8 is a depiction of the
interoperability network concept as currently envisioned.
Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview:
[See PDF for image]
Source; GAO analysis based on Oregon data.
[End of figure]
Local Approach:
Local agencies use a wide range of radio frequencies and communication
technologies and have various strategies and solutions to improving
interoperability. In particular, Marion County uses analog UHF and VHF
systems; and trunked, as well as conventional radios. Officials stated
that they have limited interoperability with state and federal agencies
and that they, therefore, maintain a cache of 30 radios available to
share, when needed. Additionally, they can use a mobile command unit
that can be deployed to any area and contains another cache of radios.
In the Portland UASI, four of the five counties use 800 MHz, analog,
trunked radio systems that provide direct interoperability among those
four counties. The fifth county is on a separate VHF system. They have
installed equipment to improve the interoperability with this fifth
county. Additionally, to provide interoperability with the fifth county
and other agencies outside the UASI area, the officials use mechanisms
such as a mobile trailer to patch calls and loan radios from its cache
of radios.
Jackson County agencies generally use conventional, VHF, analog radio
systems. Officials indicated that although two of the cities within the
county are digitally capable, their first responders use the analog
mode due to the fact that many of their neighboring jurisdictions do
not have digital radios. In order to interoperate with jurisdictions on
different systems, they use common radio channels, patching mechanisms,
as well as a mobile command vehicle that is equipped with a cache of
radios in different frequencies and a patching device. In addition,
Jackson County and Josephine County are developing a communications
system that connects the two counties.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The Deputy Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
March 15, 2007:
Ms. Linda Koontz:
Director:
Information Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Koontz:
Thank you for providing a copy of the GAO's draft report entitled
"First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications
Interoperability" (GAO-07-301).
I commend you on the comprehensive nature of your report. The
Department of Commerce takes its role in improving the technology that
supports all first responders very seriously. In light of this, I
enclose comments that will assist you in clearly interpreting the
information provided by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration. These comments include specific concerns that could
lead to an inaccurate perception of the current state of
interoperability.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. I
applaud your efforts to improve programs supporting our Nation's first
responders.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
March 22, 2007:
Ms. Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Koontz:
RE: Draft Report GAO-07-301, First Responders: Much Work Remains to
Improve Communications Interoperability (GAO Job Code 310756):
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes five recommendations. We
agree with two recommendations, disagree with one recommendation, and
will take two others under advisement.
We agree that a great deal of work remains before our Nation's
emergency responders have seamless communications interoperability.
However, there are several areas in the report that need to be
corrected in order to provide an accurate picture of the current state
of efforts to improve interoperability. We have provided specific
lengthy comments with examples about inaccurate statements in the draft
report as technical comments under separate cover and they are
incorporated by reference. We highlight some of the comments herein.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security (1) assess how
states' grant requests support their statewide communications plans and
include the assessment as a factor in making DHS grant allocation
decisions and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise for UASI [Urban
Area Security Initiative] areas that provides local officials with
sufficient time to develop and implement exercises to validate the
robustness and effectiveness of their tactical interoperable
communications plans.
We will take these recommendations under advisement. Officials in what
is now known as our Preparedness Directorate will comment on these
recommendations when we provide a sixty day response to the
recommendations following issuance of your report. Aspects of
communications interoperability will transfer at the end of the month
to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) [now called
the Preparedness Directorate]. Other changes at the Department include
standing up the Office of Emergency Communication within NPPD's Cyber
Security and Telecommunications. Programmatic elements of SAFECOM will
be included in the Office of Emergency Communications.
GAO also recommends that DHS develop and implement a program plan for
SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
interoperability programs that include goals focused on improving
interoperability among all levels of government. We agree with the
intent of the recommendation and have been addressing it. We disagree
with the implication that action has not been taken. The program plan
for SAFECOM is in development as the program transitions from Science
and Technology's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to the
Office of Emergency Communications.
SAFECOM has always had goals for improving interoperability among
local, state, tribal, and Federal emergency response agencies. SAFECOM,
with support from OMB, adopted a strategy based on user needs and
driven from the bottom-up to meet its mission as an E-Government
project. Our technical comments include a list of SAFECOM metrics/
goals.
SAFECOM heavily relies on input from local, state, and Federal
emergency response practitioners. It has developed forums where
practitioners can define and implement interoperable solutions,
including its Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council. Among
the Federal participants on these working groups are representatives
from the Department of Justice, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal
Communications Commission, as well as multiple other offices within
DHS. In addition, the Federal Partnership for Interoperable
Communications (FPIC) seeks to improve interoperability at the Federal
level. All FPIC member agencies have aligned to the SAFECOM program.
Alignment is defined as being in compliance with the P25 standards, a
suite of eight standards for the manufacturing of interoperable,
digital, two-way wireless communications products.
In your fourth recommendation, you state that the DHS include in the
program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability programs
quantifiable performance measures that can be used to determine the
extent to which each of the goals have been accomplished, and that can
be used to assess the effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools,
assistance, and outreach, and make improvements based on the feedback.
We agree with the recommendation. In addition to the current
performance measures that SAFECOM reports to OMB, DHS agrees that it is
important to establish performance measures that can be used to
determine the extent to which each of the SAFECOM goals have been
accomplished. To this end, DHS officials intend to establish
quantifiable performance measures that can be used to determine the
extent of accomplishment. The goals should be established by the third
quarter of 2007.
We agree that it is important to not only produce tools that aid the
emergency response community in achieving greater interoperability, but
also to evaluate the efficacy of those tools. Once finalized and
implemented, the performance measures will provide feedback that will
influence the development of future tools in order to better serve the
program's mission and accomplish its goals. Performance measures and
methods of collecting data will be consistent with DHS and Federal
regulations. Further, they will be based on best practices from the
public and private sectors on measuring the efficacy of free
publications.
Fifth, and finally, GAO recommends that the Secretary modify grant
guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications
equipment until standards for completed interfaces have been fully
defined and products have been certified compliant with all aspects of
the standards. The recommendation suggests that grant guidance
requirements related to Project 25 (P25) standards be diluted or
expunged until P25 standards are complete. We disagree with the
recommendation as it would require that SAFECOM amend its
interoperability grant guidance by removing language that encourages
grant recipients to purchase P25-compliant equipment until after the
entire P25 suite of standards is complete. P25 represents the
foundation for near-term communications interoperability and can be
completed in the next 18 months if all parties are committed.
The recommendation discounts tremendous recent progress with P25, and
could undermine the final remaining negotiations between the public
safety community and equipment manufacturers. Our Science and
Technology Directorate's Command, Control and Interoperability Division
officials know from the National Interoperability Baseline Survey that
40 percent of agencies intend to procure new systems within the next
five years. Muting the P25 language would remove all incentives for
manufacturers to participate in completing the P25 standards. It would
also ensure that tens of thousands of communities would invest Federal
"interoperability" funds in proprietary systems that will never be
interoperable. Indeed, one of the most frequent requests by public
safety officials is for standards and comprehensive guidance.
The GAO draft report also implies that FY 2007 Homeland Security grant
dollars received by applicants will be spent by local public safety
agencies in FY 2007, but that is unlikely. States typically receive
grant funds by the end of the fiscal year for which funding has been
appropriated. This means these funds will be allocated to localities
and drive requests for proposals through FY 2009. Therefore, the grant
guidance serves as additional pressure on the P25 standard stakeholders
to complete the standard in the next 18 to 24 months. However, even if
the P25 committee fails to reach its final goal in the 18-to-24 month
timeframe, new P25 features are being manufactured as they are
ratified, which continually increases the capacity for interoperability
among users.
GAO maintains that compliance assessment cannot begin until P25
standards development is complete. However, fully completed standards
are not required for initial compliance assessments. In fact, the
existing compliance assessment criteria was modeled after a highly
successful compliance assessment effort conducted by the Army which
resulted in manufacturers re-tooling their equipment to be as
interoperable as promised. Standards development and compliance
assessment have been successfully moving in parallel with each other,
each influencing and refining the other for the benefit of all parties
involved. More importantly, technology will continue to evolve,
requiring continuous updating of the standards. Waiting for a "final"
standard would prohibit any standards from ever being applied.
In addition, there are two particular areas of concern in the draft
report that we urge GAO to address before the report is finalized and
submitted to Congress:
1. The need to include information on several additional agencies and
programs charged with improving Federal interoperability.
2. The need to clarify SAFECOM's strategy of addressing the
interoperable communications needs of local, tribal, and state
interoperability ahead of Federal responders.
The GAO report examined some communications interoperability programs,
omitting critical activities being conducted by other major programs,
particularly other programs focused on interoperability among Federal
responders. These agencies include the newly created Office of
Emergency Communications within DHS; the Integrated Wireless Network;
the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program; and the
Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications. A complete list
of agencies involved with interoperable communications is included in
our technical comments.
Under law, SAFECOM has a role in Federal interoperable communications
and is meeting its requirement in three ways:
1. SAFECOM guidance to states requires the integration of Federal
responders into their statewide interoperable communications plans.
2. SAFECOM's Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council
includes representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior,
the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department
of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Federal Communications Commission, as well as multiple offices within
the Department of Homeland Security.
3. SAFECOM is a member and a regular participant in the FPIC. The FPIC
consists of 44 Federal entities representing more than 200
participants. The report appears to recommend that SAFECOM should
create or maintain a redundant functionality to compete with FPIC
activities. SAFECOM does not believe that creating more
interoperability programs will result in more interoperability.
By examining these other entities and the significant work they have
accomplished, your report could offer a more complete picture of
Federal efforts to improve interoperability.
The second major issue is GAO's view that SAFECOM has mistakenly made
local, tribal, and state emergency responders its highest priority. In
2001 the President created the SAFECOM program under the Government to
Government (G2G) customer segment as part of the Presidential E-
Government strategy. State and local governments were the primary
customer of the G2G customer segment, and are therefore SAFECOM's
primary focus. SAFECOM also maintains that since ninety percent of the
public safety infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by
local jurisdictions, the Federal Government can have the greatest
impact working with local, tribal, and state emergency responders, and
by integrating those efforts with Federal plans-not by making local and
state interoperability secondary to Federal requirements.
In every incident, it is a virtual certainty that a local, tribal, or
state emergency responder will be the first to arrive on the scene. If
interoperability does not occur at that level, then no amount of
Federal interoperability will be able to compensate. Federal responders
will be there to act primarily as support when possible. For this
reason, SAFECOM continues to maintain that its prioritization of local,
tribal, and state emergency responders is the most appropriate course
of action. The draft report gives the impression that SAFECOM is
targeting the wrong population despite its Presidential E-government
mandate.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Linda Koontz, (202) 512-6240, koontzl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, John de Ferrari, Assistant
Director; Neil Doherty; Richard Hung; Tom Mills; Shannin O'Neill; Karen
Talley; Amos Tevelow; and Jayne Wilson made major contributions to this
report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state
capital region.
[2] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L.
No. 108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004.
[3] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington, D.C: 2004), 322-3.
[4] For more information on the need for better frequency planning and
coordination, see GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2004).
[5] Voice over Internet Protocol, also called VoIP, is the routing of
voice conversations over the Internet or any other Internet Protocol
network.
[6] GAO-04-740.
[7] GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 16, 2004).
[8] GAO-04-494.
[9] Each year the number of urban areas designated as a UASI area
changes. In 2005, DHS designated 43 UASI areas, and in 2006 DHS reduced
the number of UASI areas to 35 (11 areas that had previously
participated in the program but did not fall within in the top 35 urban
areas in the 2006 risk analysis were eligible to apply for UASI funding
for one additional grant cycle to help sustain ongoing projects). In
2007, 45 areas were designated as UASI areas.
[10] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1433-
35, Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1801 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 571).
[11] The American National Standards Institute coordinates and oversees
the development and use of voluntary standards in the United States and
participates in accrediting programs that assess conformance to
standards.
[12] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1438
Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1804 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, 6 U.S.C. 574).
[13] GAO-04-740.
[14] The committee was established by the Federal Communications
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to evaluate the wireless communications needs of
federal, state, and local public safety agencies.
[15] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1435-
36, Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1802 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 572).
[16] The 25 e-government initiatives were established by the Office of
Management and Budget to simplify and unify agency work processes and
information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable
information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being
collected many times.
[17] GAO-04-494.
[18] The program also had a goal of increasing the development and
adoption of standards. Standards development is discussed in a separate
section below.
[19] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L.
No. 108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004.
[20] Narrowband refers to the method of gaining more channels (and
hence more capacity) by splitting channels into channels that are
narrower in bandwidth.
[21] Encryption is the process of transforming ordinary data (commonly
referred to as plaintext) into code form (ciphertext) using a special
value known as a key and a mathematical process called an algorithm.
Cryptographic algorithms are designed to produce ciphertext that is
unintelligible to unauthorized users. Decryption of ciphertext is
possible by using the proper key.
[22] We visited 15 locations. However, Franklin County, Kentucky, did
not indicate which tools they use, and 4 localities were unfamiliar
with the SAFECOM's Statement of Requirements and its Public Safety
Architecture Framework.
[23] SAFECOM officials have recently added a sixth performance measure
that is intended to measure "percent of federal agencies aligning to
the SAFECOM program," however the measure does not reflect federal
agency alignment to the SAFECOM program. Instead, it attempts to
measure federal agencies' compliance with Project 25 standards.
[24] H.R. Rep. No. 108-792, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004) at 755.
[25] GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits,
but Faces Considerable Challenges, GAO-06-392 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
24, 2006).
[26] NIST is developing a process for determining manufacturers'
laboratories as being "approved."
[27] We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state
capital region.
[28] GAO-04-740.
[29] DHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications
includes funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the
Office of Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security
Program and the UASI program.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
