Homeland Security
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications Gao ID: GAO-04-740 July 20, 2004Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these communications.
In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level of government could "fix" the nation's interoperable communications problems. Success would require effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless communication systems' ability to talk among themselves as necessary and authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions compared to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and measure progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do this are not currently available. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of a nationwide survey. However, at the time of our review, DHS had not yet developed its detailed plans for conducting this survey and reporting its results. The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts to improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the federal government's Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to achieve national wireless communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM's authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited by its dependence upon other agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently examining alternative methods to implement SAFECOM's mission. In addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in several functions, including wireless communications. The exact structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being developed. State and local governments can play a large role in developing and implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable communications. State and local governments own most of the physical infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary source of support. However, states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans.
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-04-740, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-740
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
Communications' which was released on July 20, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2004:
Homeland Security:
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to
Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications:
GAO-04-740:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-740, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can
be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed.
This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable
wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these
communications.
What GAO Found:
In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level
of government could ’fix“ the nation‘s interoperable communications
problems. Success would require effective, collaborative,
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.
The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless
communication systems‘ ability to talk among themselves as necessary
and authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions
compared to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and
measure progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do
this are not currently available. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) intends to obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of
a nationwide survey. However, at the time of our review, DHS had not
yet developed its detailed plans for conducting this survey and
reporting its results.
The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts
to improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a
national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing
technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve
interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
established the federal government‘s Wireless Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to
achieve national wireless communications interoperability. However,
SAFECOM‘s authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and
state efforts has been limited by its dependence upon other agencies
for funding and their willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently
examining alternative methods to implement SAFECOM‘s mission. In
addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is
establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to
coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in
several functions, including wireless communications. The exact
structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are
still being developed.
State and local governments can play a large role in developing and
implementing plans to improve public safety agencies‘ interoperable
communications. State and local governments own most of the physical
infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states
play a central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal
Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in
concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability
channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad
input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a
foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level
of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary
source of support. However, states are not required to develop
interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should
be included in such plans.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a
nationwide database and common terminology for public safety
interoperability communications channels; (2) assess interoperability
in specific locations against defined requirements; (3) through federal
grant awards, encourage state action to establish and support a
statewide body to develop and implement detailed improvement plans; and
(4) encourage that grant applications be in compliance with statewide
interoperability plans, once they are developed. GAO also recommends
that the Director of OMB work with DHS to review SAFECOM‘s functions
and establish a long-term program with appropriate authority and
funding to coordinate interoperability efforts across the federal
government.
DHS generally agreed with our first two recommendations but did not
specifically address the other recommendations to DHS. OMB had no
comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William Jenkins at (202)
512-8777 or jenkinsw@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide
Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued:
Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve:
State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability
Planning and Communications:
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning:
Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure:
Cross Border Planning:
Cross Border Radio Interference:
Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues:
Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band:
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications:
Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements:
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and
Emerging Public Safety Communications and Interoperability:
Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications:
Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment:
Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent
Assessments of Alternative Technologies:
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve:
Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability:
Appendix VFederal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning:
First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term
Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs:
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:
Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits
Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels:
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:
No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate
Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Related Products:
Bibliography:
Tables:
Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability
Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and
Their Eligible Uses:
Figures:
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:
Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for
Communications Funds:
Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations:
Abbreviations:
AGILE: Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement:
CAPRAD: Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database
System:
COPS: Office of Community Oriented Policing Service:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOC: Department of Commerce:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
EMS: Emergency Management Services:
FCC: Federal Communications Commission:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
IWN: Integrated Wireless Network:
NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Agency:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
NIJ: National Institute of Justice:
NPSTC: National Public Safety Telecommunications Council:
PSWAC: Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee:
NCC: Public Safety National Coordination Committee:
NLECTC: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center:
NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
ODP: Office for Domestic Preparedness:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PSWN: Public Safety Wireless Network:
SAFECOM: Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 20, 2004:
The Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher Shays, Chairman:
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Adam H. Putnam, Chairman:
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The inability of first responders--police officers, fire fighters,
emergency medical service personnel, public health officials, and
others--to communicate effectively over wireless systems with one
another as needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely
recognized problem in many areas across the country.[Footnote 1]
Reports have shown that when first responders cannot communicate
effectively as needed, it can literally cost lives of both emergency
responders and those they are trying to assist. Thus, effective
communications between and among wireless communications systems used
by federal, state, and local public safety agencies is generally
accepted as not only desirable but essential for the protection of life
and property. Public safety officials generally recognize that
effective "interoperable" communications is the ability to talk with
whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to
talk with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of
wireless systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an
emergency incident, whether that incident is a "routine" spill from an
overturned tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist
attack.
Various reports have documented a number of barriers to achieving
interoperable public safety wireless communications, including
incompatible and aging equipment, limited and fragmented funding,
fragmented planning and collaboration, and limited equipment standards.
The federal government has been addressing these issues for over 15
years through the attempts of a variety of federal agencies to define
the extent of the problem and to identify potential solutions. The
September 11 attacks have resulted in greater public and governmental
focus on the role of first responders and their capabilities to respond
to emergencies, including terrorist incidents. In our November 6, 2003,
testimony[Footnote 2] before subcommittees of the House Committee on
Government Reform we identified three principal challenges to improving
interoperable communications for first responders: (1) clearly
identifying and defining the problem; (2) establishing national
interoperability performance goals and standards that balance
nationwide standards with the flexibility to address differences in
state, regional, and local needs and conditions; and (3) defining the
roles of federal, state, and local governments and other entities in
addressing interoperability needs. We noted that perhaps the
fundamental barrier to addressing all of the long-standing problems in
interoperable communications is the lack of effective, collaborative,
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning and that no one first
responder group or governmental agency can successfully "fix" the
interoperability problems that face our nation.
In this report, we examine (1) issues in determining the current
interoperable communications capabilities of first responders
nationwide, including the scope and severity of interoperable wireless
communications problems across the nation; (2) the potential roles that
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these
communications, and (3) how the variety of federal grants for state and
local first responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of
interoperable problems and the development of comprehensive plans to
address those problems.
To address these issues, we met with officials of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Defense
(DOD), and obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation. We also met
with officials from the states of California, Florida, Georgia, and
Washington and local governments within those states. We chose these
four states because we had information that they were active in
addressing interoperability issues and because California and
Washington provided an opportunity to examine specific interoperability
issues that might be presented by national borders with Mexico and
Canada. We obtained and reviewed documentation from federal, state, and
local officials regarding interoperability issues, plans and
activities. In addition, we attended several meetings of public safety
communications officials and met with staff of the National Governors
Association. See appendix I for more details on our objectives, scope,
and methodology. In addition, information on cross-border
communications issues we obtained during field visits to the states of
California and Washington is included in appendix II. We conducted our
work from July 2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation--including the current interoperable communications
capabilities of first responders and the scope and severity of the
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Although various
reports have documented the lack of interoperability of public safety
first responders wireless communications in specific locations,
complete and current data do not exist documenting the scope and
severity of the problem at the local, state, interstate, or federal
levels across the nation. Accumulating these data may be difficult,
however, because several problems inhibit efforts to identify and
define current interoperable communications capabilities and future
requirements. Current capabilities must be measured against a set of
requirements for interoperable communications, and these requirements
vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific
locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what
set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to
satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable
communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force
operations that occur when members of different agencies come together
to work on a common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper
investigation, or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements
for interoperable communications also may change with the expanding
definition of first responders--from the traditional police, fire, and
emergency medical providers to include such professions as health care
providers and other professions--and the evolution of new technology. A
federal program, the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
Communications Program, also known as SAFECOM, has embarked on an
effort to establish a national baseline of interoperable communications
capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details
of the study that would be used to develop the baseline.
The federal government, states, and local governments have important
roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, gaps in meeting
those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps.
The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to assist state and local governments to meet
these goals. For example, currently national requirements for
interoperable communications are incomplete and no national
architecture exists, there is no single nationwide database of the
frequency channels used by public safety agencies to coordinate
frequencies, and no common nomenclature exists for interoperability
channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements or a national
architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database, or develop a
common nationwide nomenclature. In 2001, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) established SAFECOM to unify the federal government's
efforts to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local, and
tribal levels in order to provide reliable public safety communications
and achieve national wireless communications interoperability.
However, SAFECOM was established as an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal
of improving interoperable communications within 18-24 months--a
timeline too short for addressing the complex, long-term nature of the
interoperability problem. In addition, the roles and responsibilities
of various federal agencies within and outside DHS involved in
communications interoperability have not been fully defined, and
SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts
has been limited in part because it has been dependent upon other
federal agencies for funding and has operated without signed
memorandums of understanding negotiated with various agencies. DHS,
where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it is
establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to
coordinate the federal response to the problems of wireless and other
functional interoperability and compatibility. The office will include
SAFECOM, but, as of June 2004, its exact structure and funding were
still being developed.
States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal
points for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications.
The FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and
procedures the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in
managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large
scale-events and disasters, states should administer the
interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of communications
spectrum. States can play a key role in improving interoperable
communications by establishing a management structure that includes
local participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability
gaps between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive
local, state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding
these plans. The states we visited or contacted--California, Florida,
Georgia, Washington, Missouri and a five state Midwest consortium--were
in various stages of formulating these management structures. However,
states are not required to establish a statewide management structure
or to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on
what should be included in such plans. In addition, no requirement
exists that interoperability of federal communications systems be
coordinated with state and local government communications systems. The
use of a standard database on communications frequencies by public
safety agencies within the state and common terminology for these
frequencies in preparation and implementation of these statewide
interoperable plans are essential but are also not required. Without
planning, coordination, and applicable standards--in other words,
without a commonly understood and accepted blueprint or national
architecture--the communications systems developed between and among
locations and levels of government may not be interoperable.
The federal grant structure does not fully support statewide planning
for communications interoperability because, among other things, grant
guidance is inconsistent and does not include interoperability planning
requirements. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level grant
reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that federal funds are
used to effectively support improved regional and statewide
communications systems. In an effort to address the issue of
inconsistent guidance, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated with other agencies
to develop standard grant guidance and requirements for planning,
building, and training for interoperable communication. DOJ's Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program and DHS's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), used portions of the guidance in
their grant application requirements.[Footnote 3]
We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the assessment
and coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We recommend
that the Secretary of DHS (1) develop a nationwide database of
interoperable public safety frequency channels and a standard
nationwide nomenclature for these channels, (2) establish requirements
for interoperable communications and assist states in assessing
interoperability in their states against those requirements; (3)
through DHS grant guidance, encourage states to establish a single
statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a single
comprehensive statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and
local communications systems in all frequency bands, and (4) at the
appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that any purchase
of interoperable communications equipment with federal funds must be
certified as being in conformance with statewide interoperability
plans. We also recommend that the Director of OMB in conjunction with
DHS review SAFECOM's functions and establish those functions as a long-
term program with adequate authority and funding.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland
Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally
consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly
address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to
establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable
communications within the state, the development of comprehensive
statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for
communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable
plans. The Department's comments are discussed later in this report.
The Department letter is reprinted in appendix VII.
Background:
Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a
necessary means for achieving an important goal--the ability to respond
effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated
actions of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural
disasters, or terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed
out that needed interoperable communications capabilities are based on
whether communications are needed for (1) "mutual-aid responses" or
routine day-to-day coordination between two local agencies; (2)
extended task force operations involving members of different agencies
coming together to work on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper
attacks in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event
that requires response from a variety of local, state, and federal
agencies, such as major wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. A California State official with long experience
in public safety communications breaks the major event category into
three separate types of events: (1) planned events, such as the
Olympics, for which plans can be made in advance; (2) recurring events,
such as major wildfires and other weather events, that can be expected
every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared based on
past experience; and (3) unplanned events, such as the September 11th
attacks, that can rapidly overwhelm the ability of local forces to
handle the problem.
Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key one,
of an effective incident command planning and operations structure. As
shown in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of achieving
interoperable communications must flow from an comprehensive incident
command and operations plan that includes developing an operational
definition of who is in charge for different types of events and what
types of information would need to be communicated (voice, data, or
both) to whom under what circumstances. Other steps include:
* defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities
needed for specific types of events;
* assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications
needs;
* identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined
requirements;
* assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable
communications requirements; and:
* developing a comprehensive plan--including, for example, mutual aid
agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training--for
closing the gap between current capabilities and identified
requirements.
Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change
over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and
technology (e.g., new equipment), and additional spectrum as it becomes
available. Consequently, both a short-and long-term "feedback loop"
that incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and
needed changes is important.
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many Agencies and Groups Have Examined and Reported on Interoperability
Issues:
The first responder community is extensive and extremely diverse in
size and the types of equipment in their communications systems.
According to SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million public
safety-first responders within more than 50,000 public safety
organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over
90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure.
This intricate public safety communications infrastructure
incorporates a wide variety of technologies, equipment types, and
spectrum bands.[Footnote 4] In addition to the difficulty that this
complex environment poses for federal, state, and local coordination,
85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many emergency management
technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership. Many of these
agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only the
largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific
communication systems development approach prevailed--resulting in
none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public
safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications
systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for
interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed
communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard
to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For
example, a Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) analysis of Fire and
Emergency Management Services (EMS) communications interoperability
found a significant need for coordinated approaches, relationship
building, and information sharing.[Footnote 5] However, the PSWN
program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally
developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific
mission needs.
According to a study conducted by the National Task Force on
Interoperability,[Footnote 6] public safety officials have unique and
demanding communications requirements. According to the study, however,
when the issue of interoperability is raised, officials respond that
they are unable to even talk to their own personnel, much less expand
their communications to include reliable and interoperable local and
regional communications, and, ultimately reliable and interoperable
local, state, and federal communications. The events of September 11,
2001, which called for an integrated response of federal, state, and
local first responders, highlighted the need for interoperable first
responder communication across disciplines and throughout levels of
government.
The attacks on New York City and the Pentagon have resulted in greater
public and governmental focus on the role of first responders and their
capabilities to respond to emergencies, including those resulting from
terrorist incidents. One result has been significantly increased
federal funding for state and local first responders, including funding
to improve interoperable communications among federal, state, and local
first responders. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated at least
$154 million targeted specifically for interoperability through a
variety of grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Justice, and other agencies. Other available grants,
such as the Homeland Security Grant, could be used for a variety of
purposes, including interoperable communications.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with
public safety spectrum issues, including communications
interoperability issues.[Footnote 7] A variety of federal departments
and agencies have been involved in efforts to define the problem and to
identify potential solutions, such as the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Telecommunications
and Information Agency (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce (DOC),
among others. Today, a combination of federal agencies, programs, and
associations are involved in coordinating emergency communications.
DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov initiatives,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created SAFECOM to
unify the federal government's efforts to help coordinate the work at
the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable
public safety communications and achieve national wireless
communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought into
DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 60
entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting
or programs. According to NIST, the summit familiarized key
interoperability players with work being done by others and provided
insight into where additional federal resources may be needed.
In addition to the many federal agencies and programs involved with
shaping first responder interoperable communication policies, a range
of public safety associations play a significant role in defining the
problems and solutions to emergency communications interoperability.
For example the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC) is a federation representing public safety telecommunications.
The purpose of NPSTC is to follow up on the recommendations made by the
Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to FCC and the
National Telecommunications and Information Agency on public safety
communication needs.[Footnote 8] In addition, NPSTC acts as a resource
and advocate for public safety telecommunications issues and is working
with SAFECOM to develop requirements for first responder
communications.
FCC established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC)
to advise them on spectrum policy decisions for public safety
interoperable communications. In July 2003, NCC made several
recommendations to FCC for improving communications interoperability.
The NCC's charter expired on July 25, 2003 and it has since been
dissolved.
In 2002, the National Governors Association released a report that
recommended that governors and their state homeland security directors
(1) develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications, (2)
ensure adequate wireless spectrum to accommodate all users, (3) invest
in new communications infrastructure, (4) develop standards for
technology and equipment, and (5) partner with government and private
industry.[Footnote 9]
These associations and task forces are just a small representation of
the many organizations identified by DHS and NIST as contributors to
public safety interoperable communications efforts.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies
have been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available
frequencies become congested and as new technology made other
frequencies available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now
operate over multiple frequency bands--operating on these different
bands required different radios because technology was not available to
include all bands in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional
capabilities but fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum,
making communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another
technical factor inhibiting interoperability is the different
technologies or different applications of the same technology by
manufacturers of public safety radio equipment. One manufacture may
design equipment with proprietary technology that will not work with
equipment produced by another manufacturer.
Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide
Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued:
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation--including current interoperable communications capability and
the scope and severity of any problems--has not been determined.
Although various reports have documented the lack of interoperability
of first responders' wireless communications in specific locations,
complete and current data do not exist documenting current
interoperable communications capabilities and the scope and severity of
any problems at the local, state, interstate, or federal level across
the nation.
SAFECOM plans to conduct a nationwide survey to assess current
capabilities of public safety agency wireless communications.
Accumulating these data may be difficult, however, because several
problems inhibit efforts to identify and define current interoperable
communications capabilities and future requirements. Improving the
interoperability of first responder wireless communications requires a
clear assessment of the current state of public safety wireless
communications interoperability, using a set of defined requirements;
an operational definition of any problems; and a planning framework to
guide the resolution of those problems. However, defining
interoperability problems is difficult because interoperability
requirements and problems are situation specific and evolve over time.
Federal Plans to Obtain Data on the Scope and Nature of Interoperable
Communications Problems:
By 2008, SAFECOM expects all public safety agencies in the United
States to have a minimum level of interoperability, as defined by a
national interoperability baseline. However, SAFECOM officials said
they lack current nationwide information on the interoperable
communications problems of first responders. Two key studies in the
late 1990s sponsored by DOJ and PSWN program provide a nationwide
picture of wireless interoperability issues among federal, state, and
local police, fire, and emergency medical service agencies at that
time.[Footnote 10] Both studies describe most local public safety
agencies as interacting with other local agencies on a daily or weekly
basis. As a result, most local agencies had more confidence in
establishing radio links with one another than with state agencies,
with whom they less frequently interact. Local public safety agencies
interact with federal agencies least of all, with a smaller percentage
of local agencies expressing confidence in their ability to establish
radio links with federal agencies.
However, the events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a
reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable
communications should extend across political jurisdictions and levels
of government. To obtain a current national picture, SAFECOM
established as a key objective to assess by July 2005 the current state
of interoperability across the nation and create a nationwide baseline
describing public safety communications and interoperability. The
baseline will be the basis for measuring future improvements made
through local, state, and federal public safety communications
initiatives. SAFECOM officials said their study will be designed to
measure actual interoperability capabilities in a sample of locations
selected to represent the national condition. According to these
officials, SAFECOM will conduct a gap analysis, which will compare the
actual levels of interoperability within a state to the various
scenarios used in a nationwide statement of requirements and determine
the minimum level of interoperability that needs to be obtained.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless
communications interoperability will be difficult because the
definition of who to include as a first responder is evolving, and
interoperability problems and solutions are situation specific and
change over time to reflect new technologies and operational
requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE[Footnote 11] program planning
meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline
is necessary to know what the nations' interoperability status really
is, to set goals, and to measure progress. However, at the meeting,
participants said they did not know how they were going to define
interoperability, how they could measure interoperability, or how to
select their sample of representative jurisdictions; this was all to be
determined at a later date. At the time of our review, SAFECOM
officials acknowledged that establishing a baseline will be difficult
and said they are working out the details of their baseline study but
still expect to complete it by July 2005.
DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such
self-assessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is
supporting the development of a communications and interoperability
needs assessment for 118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City
region. The official said the assessment will provide an inventory of
communications equipment and identify how the equipment is used. He
also said the results of this prototype effort will be placed on a CD-
Rom and distributed to states and localities to provide a tool to
conduct their own self assessments. SAFECOM officials said they will
review ODP's assessment tool as part of a coordinated effort and use
this tool if it meets the interoperability requirements of first
responders.
Interoperability Issues Change as the Definition of First Responders
Expands and Technology Evolves:
Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable
communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they
want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of
the time. However, there is no standard definition of communications
interoperability. Nor is there a "one size fits all" requirement for
who needs to talk to whom. Traditionally, first responders have been
considered to be fire, police, and emergency medical service personnel.
However, in a description of public safety challenges, a federal
official noted that the attacks of September 11, 2001, have blurred the
lines between public safety and national security. According to the
Gilmore Commission, effective preparedness for combating terrorism at
the local level requires a network that includes public health
departments, hospitals and other medical providers, and offices of
emergency management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and
emergency medical services first responders.[Footnote 12] Furthermore,
Congress provided an expanded definition of first responders in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, which defined "emergency response
providers" as including "Federal, State, and local emergency public
safety, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical
(including hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel,
agencies, and authorities."[Footnote 13]
Technological changes also present new problems and opportunities for
achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications.
According to one official, in the 1980s a method of voice transmission
called "trunking" became available that allowed more efficient use of
spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking
technologies developed, and these systems were not interoperable. This
official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more
prevalent and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become
more important.
In addition, technical standards for interoperable communications are
still under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between
industry and the public safety user community developed what is known
as Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office,
Project 25 standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in
the United States for public safety communications. DHS purchased
radios that incorporate the P-25 standards for each of the nation's 28
urban search and rescue teams. PSWN believes P-25 is an important step
toward achieving interoperability, but the standards do not mandate
interoperability among all manufacturers' systems. Standards
development continues today as new technologies emerge that meet
changing user needs and new policy requirements.
Finally, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are
potential sources of new interoperability problems. Availability of new
spectrum can also encourage the development of new technologies and
require further development of technical standards. For example, the
FCC recently designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz)
band, for use and support of public safety. The FCC provided this
additional spectrum to public safety users to support new broadband
applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local
area networks for incident scene management. The FCC requested in
particular comments on the implementation of technical standards for
fixed and mobile operations on the band. NPSTC has established a task
force that includes work on interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz
band.
Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve:
The federal government has a long history in addressing federal, state,
and local government public safety issues--in particular
interoperability issues. Congress has also recently contributed to the
development of policies. In October 2002 the House Committee on
Government Reform issued a report entitled How Can the Federal
Government Better Assist State and local Governments in Preparing for a
Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Attack? The Committee's first finding
was that incompatible communication systems impede intergovernmental
coordination efforts. The Committee recommended that the federal
government take a leadership role in resolving the communications
interoperability problem.
In December 2003, the SAFECOM and the AGILE program within DOJ issued a
joint report in which they established a series of initiatives and
goals extending over the next 20 years. The report concludes that a
continuous and participatory effort is required to improve public
safety communications and interoperability. OMB created the SAFECOM
program as a short-term (18-24 months) E-Gov initiative. It had no
designated long-term mission. However, OMB has identified SAFECOM as
the primary program responsible for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperability. How to institutionalize that role is still an
evolving process. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the
various federal agencies--the FCC, DOJ, and others--involved in
communications interoperability have not been fully defined and
SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts
is limited. DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it
is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to
coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability and
compatibility. The exact structure and funding for the office, which
will include SAFECOM, are still being developed.
There are areas in which the federal government can provide leadership,
such as developing national requirements and a national architecture
for public safety interoperable communications, national databases, and
common, nationwide terminology for communications. Moreover, the
federal government alone can allocate communications spectrum for
public safety use.
Establishing National Requirements and a National Architecture:
One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability
strategy has been the lack of a statement of national mission
requirements for public safety--what set of communications capabilities
should be built or acquired--and a strategy to get there. A key
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is to complete
a comprehensive Public Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement
is to provide functional requirements that define how, when, and where
public safety practitioners communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS
announced the release of the first comprehensive Statement of
Requirements defining future communication requirements and outlining
future technology needed to meet these requirements. According to DHS,
the statement provides a shared vision and an architectural framework
for future interoperable public safety communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that
will define future communications services as they change or become new
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide
specific details. One example of potential future development is
expanded coverage to include public safety support functions. The
current statement is incomplete because it only addresses the
functional requirements for traditional public safety first responders-
-Emergency Medical Services personnel, firefighters, and law
enforcement officers. The statement recognizes the existence of but
does not include in this version those elements of the public safety
community--such as transportation or public utility workers--whose
primary mission provides vital support to public safety officials.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation
of interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and
efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has promoted
the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a
challenging goal: agency operational structures that are optimally
defined in both business and technological environments.[Footnote 14]
Office of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged
SAFECOM with developing a national architecture, which will include
local, state, and federal government architectures. According to these
officials, SAFECOM is to work closely with state and local governments
to establish a basic understanding of what infrastructure currently
exists, and to identify public safety communication requirements.
SAFECOM officials said development of a national architecture will take
time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments to
establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will
then collect the state and local architectures, and fit them into a
national architecture that links federal communications into the state
and local infrastructure.
Standard Databases to Support Interoperable Communications Not
Established:
State and local officials consider a standard database to be essential
to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies
and for general public safety purposes. The Public Safety National
Communications Council (NCC), appointed by the FCC to make
recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications
spectrum, recommended that the FCC mandate Regional Planning Committee
use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies during license
applications. In January 2001, the FCC rejected this recommendation
noting that while the NCC believed that use of this database would
ensure avoidance of channel interference between spectrum users,
mandating use of the database was premature because it had not been
fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit the
issue of mandating the database once the database is developed and has
begun operation.
In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC noted that on July 18,
2003 the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council demonstrated
to FCC staff what it represented was an operational version of the
database, now named the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and
Database System (CAPRAD). The NCC urged the FCC to reevaluate its
position in light of the demonstration of CAPRAD, and, if appropriate,
to adopt a rule requiring its use by Regional Planning Committees in
their planning process.
Officials at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center (NLECTC)--Rocky Mountain Center[Footnote 15] said they are
developing and administering the CAPRAD database. Center officials told
us CAPRAD is a frequency pre-coordination database that is evolving as
the user community defines its requirements. For example, they said
CAPRAD was used to develop a draft nationwide 700 MHz frequency
allocation plan that included interoperability frequencies,
frequencies allocated to states for general state purposes, and
frequencies allocated to the general public safety community. FCC
designated Regional Planning Committees[Footnote 16] and frequency
coordinators[Footnote 17] can then use this plan as a starting point to
develop detailed plans for their regions. Center officials said that
several RPCs have also loaded their 700 and 800 MHz regional plans into
CAPRAD for review by adjacent RPCs or officials needing information on
a regional plan. Center officials also told us that they are working on
a comparable SIEC model to include interoperability channels across all
bands.
State and local officials we visited were familiar with the database
and generally favored its use. For example, a California state official
wrote us that some California state and local officials participated in
the drafting of this NCC recommendation and believe its use will assist
in preventing interstate interference. State and local officials in the
State of Washington said that the use of the CAPRAD database should be
mandatory. The officials said CAPRAD would facilitate new spectrum
allocation and pre-coordination of spectrum. In addition, they said
CAPRAD holds the potential of eliminating interference between users,
and is the first universally accepted frequency coordination database.
It holds the promise of a one-stop frequency coordination database,
according to a Washington State Department of Information Services
official.
Common Terminology for Interoperable Channels Not Established:
Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. For example, the regional communications
chairs of the Florida Regional Domestic Security Task Forces have noted
that non-technical barriers are the most important and difficult to
solve. Police and fire departments often have different concepts and
doctrines on how to operate an incident command post and use
interoperable communications. Similarly, first responders, such as
police and fire departments, may use different terminology to describe
the same thing. Differences in terminology and operating procedures can
lead to communications problems even where the participating public
safety agencies share common communications equipment and spectrum.
State and local officials have drawn specific attention to problems
caused by the lack of common terminology in naming the same
interoperability frequency. In January 2001 the FCC rejected an NCC
recommendation that the FCC mandate through its rules that specific
names be designated for each interoperability channel on all public
safety bands. The Commission said it would have to change its rules
each time the public safety community wished to revise a channel label
and that this procedure would be too cumbersome.
In its final report on July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed its earlier
recommendation and added a recommendation that all radios that include
a channel-selection display be required to use the standard names. The
NCC said standard names are essential to achieve interoperability
because all responders to an incident must know what channel to which
they must tune their radios. The NCC said adoption of such standard
names will avoid confusion resulting from use of different names for
the same frequency by different jurisdictions. In an earlier May 29,
2003 report, the NCC noted multiple examples where lack of common
channel names had disrupted coordination of effective response to
incidents. The NCC noted that the problem could endanger life and
property in a very large-scale incident. In addition, the NCC noted
that its recommendation could be implemented in a short time at
virtually no cost and that the recommendation was consistent with
previous FCC actions. For example, the NCC noted that the FCC had
designated channels specified for medical communications use for the
specific purpose of uniform usage.
Converting SAFECOM's Functions to a Long-Term Program:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created SAFECOM in 2001 to
unify the federal governments' efforts to coordinate work at the
federal, state, local and tribal levels on improving interoperable
communications. According to OMB, SAFECOM is the umbrella program for
all Federal interoperability efforts and will work with state and local
interoperability initiatives. DHS is the managing partner of the
SAFECOM project with six additional agencies as partner agencies. The
partner agencies include the Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior,
Justice, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture. According to OMB,
all of these agencies have significant roles to play in public safety
communications, emergency/incident response and management, and law
enforcement.
Our April 2004 report on Project SAFECOM[Footnote 18] compared
SAFECOM's progress against its overall objective of achieving national
wireless communications interoperability among first responders and
public safety systems at all levels of government. This broad objective
could not be fully realized within the target of 18 to 24 months.
However, we also noted that two major factors have contributed to the
project's limited progress toward this objective: (1) a lack of
consistent executive commitment and support and (2) an inadequate level
of interagency collaboration. We concluded that until these
shortcomings are addressed, the ability of SAFECOM to deliver on its
promise of improved interoperability and better response to emergencies
will remain in doubt. We recommended that the Secretary of Homeland
Security direct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to
complete written agreements with other federal agencies and
organizations representing state, local, and tribal governments that
define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of those
organizations will assume. These agreements should include specific
provisions for funding the project and measuring its performance.
In addition, key program structure and funding issues seriously limit
the ability of SAFECOM to affect the future long-term development of
the interoperability function and mission. SAFECOM's program and
funding structure were established to address the public safety
wireless communications problems as a short-term, 18-24 month project.
However, DHS recognizes that a long-term, intergovernmental effort will
be needed to achieve the program's overall goal of improving emergency
response through broadly interoperable first responder communications
systems. As a result, DHS set a SAFECOM goal to establish a "system of
systems" by 2023 that will provide the necessary interoperability for
public safety users. The program funding structure as established does
not support a long-term program. Because SAFECOM is an E-Gov project,
each year OMB instructs federal agencies designated as a partner with
SAFECOM to provide specified amounts of funding to SAFECOM. SAFECOM
negotiates an annual Memorandum of Agreement on funding or program
participation with each of these agencies; however, in our Project
SAFECOM report, we said that by the end of our field work in 2004
SAFECOM had signed an agreement with only one agency in fiscal year
2004.
Representatives of federal, state, and local public safety users
identified as a high priority the development of a business case with
long term sustainable funding for a national office for public safety
communications and interoperability and recommended that this office
should become a part of the annual President's budget request process.
SAFECOM officials said establishment of a budget funding line for
SAFECOM was discussed for fiscal year 2005 budget, but the budget does
not contain a funding line for SAFECOM in fiscal year 2005 or beyond.
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles and Responsibilities for
Interoperability:
DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program
and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it
does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in
relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies
that have missions that may be related to the OMB assigned mission for
SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies,
including ODP within DHS, AGILE in DOJ; DOD; the FCC; the NTIA within
DOC, and other agencies. For example, the Homeland Security Act assigns
ODP primary responsibility within the executive branch for preparing
the United States for acts of terrorism, including coordinating or, as
appropriate, consolidating communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security at all levels of
government.
An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted authority to ODP
to serve as the primary agency for preparedness against acts of
terrorism, to specifically include communications issues. He said ODP
is working with states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a
strategic planning process that assesses and funds their requirements.
As indicated earlier, ODP also plans to develop tools to link these
assessments to detailed interoperable communications plans. According
to this official, SAFECOM, as part of the Science and Technology
Directorate, is responsible for (1) developing standards; (2) research,
development, testing, and evaluation of public safety communications;
and (3) advising ODP about available technologies and standards.
In addition, although OMB states that SAFECOM is the umbrella program
to coordinate actions of the federal government, it does not include
all major federal efforts aimed at promoting wireless interoperability
for first responders. Specifically, the Justice Department continues to
play a strong role in interoperability after establishment of DHS. Key
Justice programs--the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law
Enforcement (AGILE) and the Interoperable Communication Technology
Program administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS)--did not transition to the SAFECOM program in the new
Department of Homeland Security.
AGILE is the Department of Justice program to assist state and local
law enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently communicate
with one another across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. It is
dedicated to studying interoperability options and advising state and
local law enforcement agencies. The SAFECOM program director also said
most of the federal research and development on prototypes is being
conducted within the AGILE program.
SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have a close working
relationship. The SAFECOM and AGILE programs also held a joint planning
meeting in early December 2003 and developed an action plan that
SAFECOM and AGILE said they were committed to implement, given
available resources.
DHS must also coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) to
address chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive
events. A November 2003 Defense Science Board (DSB) report said DOD's
role includes, when directed, military support to civil authorities,
and that DOD assistance could be required to assist in incident
response. But the Board concluded that DOD must improve communication
interoperability between first responders and federal, state, and local
agencies involved in emergency preparedness and incident response.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address
public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National
Governors' Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive
coordination will be required between the FCC and the NTIA to provide
adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state, and federal
communications. However, the current legal framework for domestic
spectrum management is divided between the NTIA within the Department
of Commerce, responsible for federal government spectrum use and the
FCC, responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use.
In a September 2002 report on spectrum management and coordination, we
found that FCC and NTIA's efforts to manage their respective areas of
responsibility are not guided by a national spectrum strategy.[Footnote
19] The FCC and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum planning
efforts and have recently taken steps to improve coordination, but have
not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct
joint, national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC and the
NTIA develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national
spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees. The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with this
recommendation. In a separate report, we also discussed several
barriers to reforming spectrum management in the United
States.[Footnote 20]
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of
Commerce said it had issued two spectrum policy reports on June 24,
2004, in response to the President's initiative, entitled Spectrum
Policy for the 21st Century. The Department said the second report
recommends an interagency effort to study the spectrum use and needs of
the public safety community, a public safety demonstration program, and
a comprehensive plan to address the spectrum shortage, interference,
technology, and security issues of the public safety community. The
Department also said that the DHS would be an integral partner in
fulfilling its recommendations.[Footnote 21]
SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited:
SAFECOM is involved in several federal coordination initiatives,
including efforts to coordinate federal funding, but according to its
officials, it does not have the oversight authority or pertinent
information to fully accomplish this objective.
The SAFECOM program is attempting to coordinate federal grant funding
to maximize the prospects for communication interoperability grants
across federal agencies by means of interagency guidance. We selected
several grant programs to determine how this guidance was used. We
found that COPS (with DOJ) and FEMA (within DHS) used this guidance, at
least in part, in their coordinated 2003 Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants, and ODP used the guidance in its 2004 Homeland
Security and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant programs. However,
COPS and FEMA officials said that it was difficult to incorporate
SAFECOM's recommended criteria for planning public safety
communications systems into their joint guidance because statutory
language for their grant programs focuses on the purchase of equipment
without specifically addressing planning.
SAFECOM also does not have authority to require federal agencies to
coordinate their grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged
in an effort with DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that
could facilitate federal oversight of interoperable communications
funding to jurisdictions and allow states access to this information
for planning purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication
of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process,
maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data
collection tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state
and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said that the challenge to
implementing the coordinated project is getting federal agency
collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the database only
contains award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA Interoperability
Communications Equipment Grants. The database does not contain grant
award information from the Office for Domestic Preparedness on its
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants or its Homeland Security
grants (HSG), nor from FEMA's Emergency Management Preparedness Grant
or any other federal agency grant funds.
SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon
its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in
the process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency
Coordination Council (FICC)[Footnote 22] and establishment of a process
for federal agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal
activities and investments in interoperability; (2) developing
standards; and (3) developing a national architecture for addressing
communications interoperability problems. OMB officials said
identification of all current and planned federal agency communications
programs affecting federal, state, and local wireless interoperability
is difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing a
strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to
enforce the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials
said they are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination
process by developing written agreements with other federal agencies
and by obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to
the SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this
newly refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical
assistance or conducting operational testing of equipment.[Footnote 23]
They said that their authority to conduct such activities will come
from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM officials also said that they
have no enforcement authority to require other agencies to use the
SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding decisions or to require
agencies to provide grant program information to them for use in their
database.
A New DHS Office of Interoperability and Compatibility:
The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS has been
tasked to lead the planning and implementation of the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). The new office is responsible
for coordinating DHS efforts to address interoperability and
compatibility of first responder equipment, to include both
communications equipment and equipment such as personal protective
equipment used by police and fire from multiple jurisdictions. The plan
as approved by the Secretary states that by November 2004 the new
office will be fully established and that action plans and a strategy
will be prepared for each portfolio (type or class of equipment). The
plan presents a budget estimate for the creation of the office through
November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each portfolio's
strategy.
In addition, plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of
various federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new
office will have over federal agency communications programs. The
Science and Technology Directorate is the manager of the new office,
which is expected to establish partnerships with all relevant offices
and agencies to effectively coordinate similar activities. These
partners include representatives from national associations of
emergency response providers, DHS and other government agencies,
standards development organizations, and industry. The DHS plan for the
new office includes a tool for relevant offices to identify areas in
which they have current interoperability-related projects and thus
identify program overlap inside and outside DHS and gaps in coverage.
As of June 2004, the exact structure and funding for the office,
including SAFECOM's role within the office, were still being developed.
State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability
Planning and Communications:
In our November 6, 2003,testimony, we identified three barriers to
improving public safety wireless interoperable communications: problem
definition, establishing interoperability goals and standards, and
defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other
entities.[Footnote 24] Of all these barriers, perhaps the most
fundamental has been limited and fragmented planning and cooperation.
No one first responder group, jurisdiction, or level of government can
successfully address the challenges posed by the current state of
interoperable communications. Effectively addressing these challenges
requires the partnership and collaboration of first responder
disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government--local, state,
federal, and tribal. In the absence of that partnership and
collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively--especially for
immediate, quick response solutions--and creating new problems in our
attempt to resolve existing ones. An integrated planning process that
is recognized by federal, state, and local officials as representing
their interests is necessary to achieve that partnership and
collaboration.
Although no one level of government can successfully address
interoperability communications challenges, the federal government can
play a leadership role developing requirements and providing support
for state efforts to assess their interoperable communications
capability and develop statewide plans for transitioning from today's
capability to identified required capability.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies
and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8
notes that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of
federal preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local
officials also believe that states, with broad local and regional
participation, have a key role to play in coordinating interoperable
communications supporting these missions.[Footnote 25] The Public
Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report on the role of the state
in providing interoperable communications, agreed. According to the
PSWN report, state leadership in public safety communications is key to
outreach efforts that emphasize development of common approaches to
regional and statewide interoperability. The report said that state
officials have a vested interest in establishing and protecting
statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety
communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional
boundary.
However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to
(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and (2)
prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum
to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint
task force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state,
and local officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and
local interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully
addressed, have significant potential to improve public safety wireless
communications interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare
comprehensive and integrated statewide plans that address the specific
interoperability issues present in each state across first responder
disciplines and levels of government.
State and Local Governments Well Positioned to Play Key Roles:
Planning requires a structure to develop and implement plans over time.
States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice
to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning. As recognized
by the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in
managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency
incidents. In addition, the FCC noted that states are usually in the
best position to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies.
Furthermore, according to DHS officials, state and local governments
own over 90 percent of the physical infrastructure for public safety
communications. Recent DHS policies have also recognized states as
being in a key position to coordinate state and local emergency
response planning. The Office for Domestic Preparedness has designated
states as the appropriate source to develop state homeland security
strategies that are inclusive of local needs, including communication
needs.
According to PSWN, state leaders can also, through memorandum of
understandings (MOU), help to define interagency relationships, reach
procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of statewide or
regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint efforts to
deploy communications technology. State and local officials we talked
with generally agreed that states can coordinate communications
planning and funding support for state communications systems and
coordinate interoperability efforts of local governments. For example,
several officials said the state can facilitate the planning process by
including key stakeholder input in the decision making process and
ensuring that communications interoperability issues are addressed.
These officials also see state roles in providing common infrastructure
and developing routine training exercises.
Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that
they are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications
planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability
is not enough because incidents first responders face could cross state
boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address
interstate interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have
combined efforts to form the Midwest Public Safety Communications
Consortium to promote interstate interoperability. According to these
officials, they also have taken actions to form an interstate committee
to develop interoperability plans and solicit support from key players,
such as local public safety agencies.
Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for
Coordinated Statewide Planning:
FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering
interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications
when it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for
the 700 MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that
administration of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band
(approximately 10 percent) should occur at the state-level in a State
Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play
a central role in managing emergency communications and that state-
level organizations are usually in control at large-scale events and
disasters or multi-agency incidents. FCC also found that states are
usually in the best position to coordinate with federal government
emergency agencies. FCC said that SIEC administrative activities could
include holding licenses, resolving licensing issues, and developing a
statewide interoperability plan for the 700 MHz band. Other SIEC
responsibilities could include the creation and oversight of incident
response protocols and the creation of chains of command for incident
response and reporting.
State and local officials recognize that the interoperability
responsibilities that FCC identified for SIECs in the 700 MHz band are
also applicable to interoperability channels in other frequency bands.
However, FCC did not retroactively apply the SIEC concept to
interoperability channels in the 800 MHz band or in the below 512 MHz
band nor did it apply the SIEC concept to the new 4.9 GHz band. The
Commission also did not require states to establish a SIEC because it
found that some states already have a mechanism in place that could
administer the interoperability channel, and requiring a SIEC would be
duplicative. The Commission did provide that the administration of the
700 MHz interoperability channels defaults to Regional Planning
Committees (RPC) should a state decide not to establish or maintain a
SIEC for this purpose. Available data conflict on how many states have
established SIECs or similar bodies, but do indicate that from 12 to 15
states did not implement a SIEC.[Footnote 26]
The Public Safety National Coordination Committee, an FCC advisory body
for the 700 MHz band, noted that SIECs are optional--there is no
requirement that the states implement such committees. NCC recommended
that FCC require all states to establish a SIEC or equivalent to
provide each state with an identified central point of contact for
information on that state's interoperability capability. NCC, however,
also expressed concerns about the extent of state control and the lack
of a broad representation of local membership in the SIECs.[Footnote
27] NCC recommended to FCC that the name SIEC be changed to the
Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee to be more inclusive of
all agencies in the state.
We found general support in the states that we visited for NCC's
recommendation to establish a Statewide Interoperability Executive
Committee as the central point of contact for information on a state's
interoperability capability. A state official from California told us
that California's long history of collaboration in mutual aid
communications activities was in part the basis for this NCC
recommendation. According to officials of the Florida State Technology
Office and local public safety officials, they support a central point
of contact for statewide interoperability efforts. State of Washington
officials said the recommendation appeared consistent with what they
are doing in Washington. Local officials in the state of Washington
told us that the term "statewide" is inclusive--it represents both the
state and local governments interests.
The states we visited or contacted were in the early stages of
formulating their SIECs, and their roles and responsibilities are still
under development.
* Recently the state of California established the California Statewide
Interoperability Executive Committee. The Office of Emergency Services
sponsors the Committee, which is responsible for setting technical and
operational standards for all existing and planned public safety
interoperability frequencies in California. Committee membership is
designed to recognize the broad diversity of local communications needs
because California has long recognized that responsibility for and
command of an incident lies with the jurisdiction where the emergency
or disaster occurs, which in the vast majority of incidents is the
local government. Thus, a majority of the Committee's 35 members are
representatives of local government, followed by the state agencies
that support local government, and the federal agencies that support
state and local government. Additionally, two California RPCs and the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials have
representation on the Committee. The Committee is supported by 9 to 10
working groups addressing various aspects of interoperability
governance. California has several state communications systems and the
coordination of these systems will be addressed by a Committee working
group.
* In March 2003, the state of Florida established the Florida Executive
Interoperable Technologies Committee. The Committee's membership
includes state and local government officials from each of the seven
Domestic Security regions in Florida and is chaired by the State
Technology Office. The Committee's role is still evolving. The
Committee and State Technology Office are responsible for the oversight
and management of all interoperable communications issues (voice and
data). The State Technology Office manages the interoperable radio
frequency resources for the state. Furthermore, the state has
identified the need for a single, comprehensive mutual aid plan and
assigned the task of developing the plan to the Committee. However, the
Committee's role in reviewing all state and local communications plans
is still not determined.
* The Washington State Interoperability Executive Committee, formed by
state legislation enacted on July 1, 2003, is a permanent subcommittee
of the Information Services Board. The legislation specified membership
for state agencies and associations representing city government,
county government, local government fire departments, Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs, and emergency managers. Federal agencies were not
included as voting members of the Committee, which issued an interim
public safety communications plan on March 30, 2004. The interim plan,
developed using a recent inventory of state communications systems,
outlines various potential solutions and the implementation timeline.
These are interim solutions and did not reflect local governments'
concerns. However, the plan will be updated to incorporate local
government survey responses. A final plan is due by December 31, 2004.
The Committee intends to incorporate the existing mutual aid plans into
the new statewide interoperability plan.
* In Georgia, the state did not opt to form a State Interoperability
Executive Committee. Instead, the 700 MHz RPC Interoperability
Committee is responsible for managing all radio frequency bands on
behalf of the state of Georgia.
Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established:
A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding
framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a
state and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City,
Mo. and Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an
interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when
substantive changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also
recommended to FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should
administer all interoperability channels in a state, not merely those
in the 700 MHz band. According to NCC, each state should have a central
point identified for information on a state's interoperability
capability.
None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding
of their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were
preparing statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited.
Georgia officials said they have a state interoperability plan but that
it is not funded. However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has
extended SIEC responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the
700 MHz band.[Footnote 28] The Missouri SIEC has also designated
standard operational and technical guidelines as conditions for the use
of these bands. SIEC requires applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to
these conditions in order to use these channels in the state of
Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the state developed its
operational and technical guidelines because FCC had not established
its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in the VHF and
UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight other states and
expressed concern that these states will develop different guidelines
that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC was
notified of Missouri's actions but has not taken action to date. In
another example, California intends to prepare a statewide
interoperability plan. California's SIEC is re-examining California's
previous stove piped programs of communications interoperability
(separate systems for law enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need
to maintain tactical channels within disciplines while promoting cross-
discipline interoperability.
FCC-designated frequency coordinators expressed support for a
comprehensive interoperability plan in July 2002. The Commission had
suggested that the frequency coordinators for the VHF and UHF bands
develop an interoperability plan for these bands. FCC said it
envisioned that the coordinators would jointly develop an
interoperability plan for the management and nationwide use of these
interoperability channels. The frequency coordinators in a joint
response rejected FCC's overture, stating that the actual management
and operational guidelines for the VHF and UHF frequencies should be
integrated with other interoperability frequencies in the 700 and 800
MHz bands, and with other interoperability channels in spectrum
identified by NTIA for interoperability with the federal government.
The frequency coordinators said operational and management planning
should include all of these channels to better coordinate future
assignment and use and that NCC and SIECs were better vehicles for
developing the guidelines requested by FCC.
Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in
Statewide Plans:
In some cases, for example, responding to such major events as
tornadoes or wildfires, state and local government first responders
also require interoperable communications with federal agencies.
According to OMB, seven federal agencies have significant roles to play
in public safety communications, emergency/incident response and
management, and law enforcement. These agencies are the Departments of
Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Health and
Human Services, and Agriculture.
As mentioned previously, FCC designated frequency coordinators told FCC
that planning for interoperability channels should include federal
spectrum designated for interoperability with state and local
governments. We found several examples in our field work that support
inclusion of federal agencies in future state and local planning for
interoperable communications. For example, a Washington State official
told us that regional systems within the state do not have links to
federal communications systems and assets. In another example,
according to an emergency preparedness official in Seattle, a study of
radio interoperable communications in a medical center also found that
federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are
not integrated into hospital or health communications systems, and
other federal agencies have no radio infrastructure to support and
participate in a health emergency such as a bio-terrorism event. He
told us that he has no idea what the federal communications plan is in
the event of a disaster; and he said he does not know how to talk to
federal health officials responding to an incident or what the federal
government needs when they arrive.
Local officials in Washington State also told us that communications
and coordination between civil and military emergency communication
organizations need improvement. These officials expressed concern that
the Department of Defense has not fully coordinated with local
officials to ensure that local jurisdictions can communicate with
Defense. According to the Washington National Guard Civil Support Team
and emergency management officials, the Guard Civil Support Team first
responders can exchange radios with other first responders in order to
communicate. In addition, the Civil Support Team can communicate on all
frequency bands using a Navy Unified Command Communications Suite.
Georgia National Guard officials said that they do not participate in
the All Hazards Council planning process to coordinate interoperable
communications.
The federal government is developing a system that could improve
interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and
federal government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a
radio system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for
the DOJ, Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement
communications system that is intended to interact and interface with
state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems.
According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to
state/ local interoperability but will not address interoperability of
state and local systems.
However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless
communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control
different frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance
interoperability, NTIA has identified 40 federal government frequencies
that can be used by state and local public safety agencies for joint
law enforcement and incident response purposes.[Footnote 29] FCC,
however, designated different frequencies for interoperability in the
VHF band and in the UHF band from spectrum it controls for use by state
and local public safety agencies.
In addition, complicated FCC licensing and coordination requirements
may further limit effective use of federal frequencies by state and
local agencies. FCC officials told us in response to our draft report
that FCC rules are consistent with what NTIA and FCC agreed to
regarding use of federal spectrum by non-federal agencies generally.
However, as a condition for their use of the federal VHF and UHF
frequencies, FCC requires individual state and local public safety
applicants to develop a written agreement between each nonfederal
agency and a federal sponsor and to use this agreement to obtain an FCC
license. FCC regulations permit federal agencies to use 700 MHz band
public safety frequencies under its control if the Commission finds
such use necessary, and the state/local government licensee approves
the sharing arrangement.
PSWN suggested using SIECs to perform the necessary planning and
coordination between FCC and NTIA for joint use of their separately
controlled frequencies. PSWN noted that the federal government
maintains a significant presence in many states, and that interoperable
communications must cut across all levels of government. Thus, PSWN
said it is essential that NTIA and federal entities and federal
spectrum be involved in the SIEC planning process from the beginning.
NCC recommended that FCC require the use of standard MOUs and sharing
agreements where licensee authorizes federal agencies and other
authorized users to use its frequencies. FCC noted that respondents to
its notice seeking comments on NCC proposals were divided and that
requiring a formal rule could only serve to increase administrative
burden on the states, many of whom may be poised to implement the MOUs
and sharing agreements or similar documents voluntarily. Thus, FCC
decided not to require the use of MOUs but strongly recommended that
states have the relevant SIEC or other entity responsible for the
administration of the interoperability channels use MOUs.
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning:
Total one-time replacement of the nation's communications systems is
very unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the
replacement value of the existing public safety communication
infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.[Footnote 30] DHS officials
said this estimate is much higher when infrastructure and training
costs are taken into account. Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that
reaching an accelerated goal of communications interoperability will
require a major investment of several billion dollars within the next 5
to 10 years. As a result of these extraordinary costs, federal funding
is but one of several resources state and local agencies must use in
order to address these costs. Given these high costs, the development
of an interoperable communications plan is vital to useful, non-
duplicative spending. However, the federal funding assistance programs
to state and local governments do not fully support regional planning
for communications interoperability. Federal grants that support
interoperability have inconsistent requirements to tie funding to
interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal
and state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure
that federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional
and statewide communications systems. Additional barriers to supporting
regional planning, such as fragmented funding structures, limitations
on time frames to develop and implement plans, and limited support for
long-term planning are discussed in appendix V.
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:
Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal
funds for interoperable communications; however, the current funding
requirements do not support this planning process. Although recent
grant requirements have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional
approach to planning, current federal first responder grants are
inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding to interoperable
communications plans. States and locals are not required to provide an
interoperable communications plan as a prerequisite to receiving some
federal grant funds. As a result, there is no assurance that federal
funds are being used to support a well-developed strategy for improving
interoperability. For example, the fiscal year 2004 HSG or UASI grants
require states or selected jurisdictions to conduct a needs assessment
and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP.[Footnote 31] However,
the required strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They do not
require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be
submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) and FEMA for
Interoperable Communications Equipment did not require that a
communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds.
However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were
actively engaged in a planning process and a multijurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional"
body should conduct planning.
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:
State and local officials also said that the short grant application
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review
of local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited
submission timeframes presents barriers to first responders for
developing plans prior to receiving funds. For example, guidance in
several federal grant programs--the Homeland Security Grant, UASI
grant, COPs and FEMA communication equipment grants, and Assistance to
Firefighters Grant--allow states only 30 or 60 days from the date of
grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These time frames are
sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the timing of the
appropriations enactment.
Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance
periods, and according to state and local officials, do not support
long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants,
COPS and FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and
National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance
periods.[Footnote 32] UASI, HSG program, and Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:
The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review
process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used
for communication projects that complement each other and add to
overall statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state
officials said that each agency reviews its own set of applications and
projects, without coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants
could be given to bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting
interoperability solutions. In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from
COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting
communication systems within bordering jurisdictions by coordinating
their review of interoperable communications equipment grant proposals.
However, COPS and FEMA are only two of several federal sources of funds
for communications interoperability.
In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated
with other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant
Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants,
which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and
training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is
designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first
responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which
grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for
applicants.[Footnote 33] The guidance recommends standard minimum
requirements, such as requirements to "—define the objectives of what
the applicant is ultimately trying to accomplish and how the proposed
project would fit into an overall effort to increase interoperability,
as well as identify potential partnerships for agreements."
Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not require, that
applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, tribal,
state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and
purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of
Project-25 standards. SAFECOM has also recently sponsored the formation
of the Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which
consists of a federal grant coordination working-group. Federal
officials said that the council will assist in shaping the common grant
guidance for Federal initiatives involving public safety
communications.
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants,
various agencies have statutory language which make it difficult to
coordinate their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said
that certain statutory provisions underlying the grant programs
presented barriers to the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and
SAFECOM to consolidate the grant application process for the 2003
Interoperable Communications Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA
coordinated their application process for the grants and used sections
of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their application requirements.
COPS and FEMA officials said that the combined COPS and FEMA
application process was intended to maximize the use of funds and
reduce duplication and competition between the two agencies'
Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials explained that
COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a combined grant
application process because the COPS grant required a twenty-five
percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a requirement.
However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent match of
"in-kind" resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce
competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.
The House Committee on Appropriations report for DHS's fiscal year 2004
appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal
programs addressing communications interoperability through planning,
building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication
systems, among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS
grant programs issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the
SAFECOM guidance and coordinate with the SAFECOM program when awarding
funding. To better coordinate the government's efforts, the Committee
also encouraged all other federal programs issuing grants for the above
purposes to use the guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their grant
programs. However, SAFECOM officials said that they have no enforcement
authority to require other agencies to use this guidance in their
funding decision or to require agencies to provide grant program
information to them for use in their database.
States are also initiating actions to address the lack of a centralized
state-level grant review process. For example, the state of Washington
is developing a centralized grant structure to review local requests
for communications funds against a statewide interoperable
communications plan that is being developed by their SIEC. The funding
process is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for
Communications Funds:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable
communications problems for public safety has been the lack of
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
planning. Jurisdictional boundaries, unique public safety agency
missions, and cultural differences among first responder organizations
have often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration.
No one first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can
"fix" the nation's interoperability problems, which vary across the
nation and often cross first responder agency and jurisdictional
boundaries. Changes in spectrum available to federal, state, and local
public safety agencies--primarily a federal responsibility conducted
through the FCC and the NTIA--changes in technology, and the evolving
missions and responsibilities of public safety agencies in an age of
terrorism all highlight the ever-changing environment in which
interoperable communications needs and solutions must be addressed.
Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multijurisdictional
partnership and collaboration are essential for effectively addressing
interoperability shortcomings.
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation--including current capabilities and the scope and severity of
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Long-term prospects
for achieving functional interoperable communications are hindered by
the lack of an institutionalized process--at the federal, state,
regional, or local levels--to systematically identify and address
current shortcomings.
The federal government can offer leadership and support for state
efforts to develop and implement statewide interoperability plans for
achieving specific interoperability goals. The federal government is
best positioned to address nationwide issues, such as setting national
requirements, developing a national architecture, establishing
national performance standards, and the development of national
databases and common nationwide nomenclature for interoperability
channels. Moreover, acting through the FCC and the NTIA, the federal
government alone has the authority to address public safety spectrum
allocation, including expanding or altering current spectrum
allocations. The federal government can also play a major role through
such means as technical assistance and grant guidance in supporting
state efforts to prepare comprehensive statewide interoperability plans
for developing federal, state, and local communications systems that
can communicate with one another as needed and as authorized. However,
developing and implementing effective statewide plans that draw on the
perspectives and expertise of the federal government and local public
safety agencies and jurisdictions is not a task that can be completed
in a matter of weeks.
The federal government's ability to provide consistent, focused, long-
term attention to interoperable communications needs has been hampered
by the lack of a designated agency with the authority and ability to
coordinate the wide-variety of federal efforts that exist. OMB has
described SAFECOM as the umbrella program to unify and coordinate the
federal government's interoperable communications efforts. Although
SAFECOM has made progress in developing grant guidance, issuing
interoperable communications requirements, beginning the process of
assessing current interoperable communications capability, and
otherwise coordinating federal efforts, it is dependent upon other
federal agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. The
Department of Homeland Security has recently announced the
establishment of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility--of
which SAFECOM would be a part--as the focal point for coordinating
federal efforts for wireless and other functional interoperability.
However, the exact nature of its roles and responsibilities are still
being determined. Moreover, this office would still face many of the
challenges that SAFECOM has faced in coordinating the interoperability
efforts of a variety of federal agencies outside of DHS, such as the
FCC and the Departments of Justice and Commerce.
With federal leadership and support and local participation and
support, states can serve as a key focus for efforts to assess and
improve interoperable communications by developing and implementing
statewide bodies to assess interoperability issues and guide efforts to
remedy identified problems through statewide interoperability plans.
Federal assistance grants to state and local governments do not fully
support statewide planning for wireless communications
interoperability. Specifically, federal grants do not fully support
regional planning and lack requirements to tie federal assistance to an
approved statewide interoperability plan. Interoperability plans for
public safety communications systems, once prepared, should guide
federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve interoperable wireless communications for first responders,
we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
ensure that the following actions are taken:
* In coordination with the FCC and the NTIA, continue development of a
nationwide database of all interoperable public safety communications
frequencies, establish a common nomenclature for those frequencies, and
establish clear timeframes to complete both efforts;
* In consultation with state and local governments, determine the
current status of wireless public safety interoperable
telecommunications across the nation by assessing interoperability in
specific locations against interoperability requirements that can be
measured, and assist states in assessing interoperability in their
states against those requirements;
* Through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single
statewide body responsible for interoperable communications and that
this body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide
interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communication
systems in all frequency bands. The statewide interoperability plan
shall be based upon the nationwide standard frequency database and use
the standard nationwide nomenclature for interoperability channels,
once they are developed; and:
* At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved
only upon certification by the statewide body responsible for
interoperable communications that such grant applications are in
conformance with statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give
states adequate time to develop these focal points and plans and to
provide guidance on development of such plans.
We further recommend that the Director, OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now performed by
SAFECOM and establish these functions as a long term program with
adequate coordination authority and funding.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We sent a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, Defense,
Homeland Security, and Justice, the Federal Communications Commission,
and the Office of Management and Budget. We did not receive comments
from OMB or the Department of Defense. The other agencies provided
technical comments that we have incorporated into the final report as
appropriate. In addition, we received written comments from the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security. The
Department of Commerce said in a letter dated July 12, 2004 that it
issued two reports on spectrum policy in June, 2004 (See appendix VI.)
We added this information to the report text as appropriate.
The Department of Homeland Security provided written comments on a
draft of this report in a July 8, 2004 letter, which is reprinted in
Appendix VII. With respect to our first recommendation, DHS said it is
developing a nationwide database of interoperable public safety
communications frequencies in its fiscal year 2004 program as part of
its support to the Computer Assisted Pre-coordination Resource and
Database System (CAPRAD). DHS also said it plans to work with the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) on a common
nomenclature across public safety disciplines and jurisdictions. DHS
did not mention coordination with the FCC and the NTIA on these
matters; the FCC regulates state and local public safety wireless
communications, and the NTIA regulates federal public safety spectrum.
Either or both the FCC and the NTIA may also take action on the
development of national databases and common nomenclature. DHS also
only refers to the use of this database in the 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz
bands: we believe it should be used for interoperable frequencies in
all federal, state, and local public safety bands. We have amended our
conclusions and recommendation to note the importance that DHS
coordinate with the FCC and the NTIA on these matters across all
interoperable public safety communications frequencies.
With respect to our second recommendation, DHS said it is developing a
methodology to establish a national baseline of public safety
communication and interoperability capabilities with input from the
public safety community. We believe that DHS should also consult
directly with state and local governments in developing requirements
and assessing interoperability in the individual states against those
requirements. We have amended our recommendation to include appropriate
language.
With respect to our third recommendation, DHS noted that it had created
coordinated grant guidance that encourages grant applicants to consider
systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by
other disciplines and at other levels of government. DHS also discusses
a methodology it developed in conjunction with the state of Virginia
for development of a statewide communications system that ensures input
from local levels, and states that this methodology will be available
through the SAFECOM grant guidance for states interested in
implementing a statewide system. However, the DHS letter did not
directly address our recommendation about encouraging states to create
statewide bodies for interoperable communications that would establish
statewide interoperability plans for federal, state, and local
communications systems in all frequency bands.
With respect to our fourth recommendation, DHS discusses a "bottoms-up"
approach to development of a meaningful governance structure and a
strategic plan for statewide communications and interoperability
developed with its partner, the state of Virginia. However, DHS '
comments do not directly address our recommendations that DHS grant
guidance require at the appropriate time that federal grant funds for
communications equipment be approved on condition that such grants are
in accordance with statewide interoperability plans.
We plan to send copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees and subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of
the Federal Communications Commission and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Thomas James, Assistant
Director at (202) 512-2996. Key contributors to this report are listed
in appendix VIII.
William O. Jenkins, Jr.:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To examine the availability of data on interoperable wireless
communications across the nation, we reviewed our November 6, 2003,
testimony where we said that the first challenge to addressing first
responder wireless communications interoperability issues was to
clearly identify and define the problem and where we identified the
absence of effective coordinated planning and collaboration as the
fundamental barrier in addressing interoperability issues. We held
further discussions on these problems with state and local officials
about these issues during our field work in California , Florida,
Georgia, and Washington. We also discussed these issues with state and
local officials from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and
during various public safety conferences and follow-up meetings. On the
basis of these discussions, we developed a framework to analyze these
issues. (See fig. 1.) We also held discussions with relevant federal
officials about identifying and defining interoperable communications
of first responders and about the applicability of this framework in a
proposed federal nationwide survey of public safety wireless
interoperability capabilities and requirements.
To examine potential roles that the federal government can play in
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications,
we met with officials of key federal agencies about their roles in
setting and implementing policy on interoperable communications for
first responders. These agencies were the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce, and
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We obtained and reviewed
relevant documentation about federal programs and projects addressing
interoperable communications. We also interviewed state and local
officials to obtain their views about the role the federal government
should play in addressing interoperability issues.
To examine potential roles that local and state governments can play in
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications,
we interviewed state and local officials in California, Florida,
Georgia, and Washington and staff of the National Governors
Association. We chose these four states because we had information that
they were active in addressing interoperability issues and because
California and Washington provided an opportunity to examine specific
interoperability issues that might be presented by national borders
with Mexico and Canada. We also met with public safety officials at
meetings of (1) the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council;
(2) the Public Safety Wireless Network program office; and (3) the
Public Safety National Coordination Council, an FCC committee that
advised the Commission on spectrum policy decisions for public safety
interoperable communications. We obtained and reviewed reports,
testimonies, and other documents relating to public safety wireless
communications and identified examples of state and local government
roles in organizing and providing for first responder communications.
We evaluated these examples of state and local government roles for
potential application to other state and local governments. We also
interviewed relevant federal officials about potential state and local
government roles in improving first responder wireless communications
interoperability issues.
To examine how the variety of federal grants for state and local first
responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of interoperable
problems and the development of comprehensive plans to address these
problems, we selected key federal grant programs that fund projects
supporting state and local government first responder communications
systems and reviewed program documentation and appropriations language
for policies affecting interoperable communications. We also obtained
relevant legislation and interviewed federal, state, and local
officials to obtain their views on these issues.
To obtain information on cross-border communications issues, we visited
San Diego, California, and Olympia, Washington, and talked to
appropriate state and local officials. We also discussed these issues
with federal officials at the Department of Commerce and FCC. We
obtained and reviewed relevant documentation from the local, state, and
federal officials.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning:
Two issues related to radio spectrum allocation affect public safety
communications across the United States borders with Canada and Mexico
(1) the lack of coordinated cross border spectrum planning and (2)
radio interference to users of the allocated spectrum. The United
States, Canada, and Mexico are addressing these issues through various
negotiations.
Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure:
Radio frequency spectrum allocation has not kept pace with technology
and demand. The process used to allocate spectrum over the years has
resulted in a problem that is still unresolved, according to the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO). One
official said past decisions in United States spectrum policy were
based on the overall demands for spectrum and the limitations of
technology at the time. According to this official, these decisions
made sense individually, but collectively those decisions have a
negative impact on the current ability of public safety agencies to
interoperate. (See fig. 3.):
Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The radio frequency spectrum within the United States extends from 9
KHz to 300 GHz and is allocated to more than 450 frequency bands. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the use of
frequencies for state and local governments and has allocated certain
portions of the spectrum for public safety agencies. Initially, almost
all public safety communications were confined to the low end of the
frequency range, but as technology advanced, higher frequencies became
possible, offering a temporary solution for congestion and crowding.
The result--public safety operates in 10 separate bands, which has
added capabilities, but which has also caused the fragmentation that
characterizes the public safety spectrum today and make it difficult
for different agencies and jurisdictions to communicate.
Cross Border Planning:
According to National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), Canada and Mexico have developed spectrum use
and rules independent of that of the United States. In particular,
Canada uses the fixed and mobile bands contained in the band 138-174
MHz for all users, including military, civilian, and government. Canada
also uses a different channeling structure than the United States and
is in the process of narrow banding portions on a different schedule
than the United States. Moreover, the majority of the Canadian
population resides in the United States/Canadian border area.
Therefore, it is very difficult for the United States to identify and
coordinate frequencies for new uses in the border area. The United
States/Mexican border presents different problems in that neither
country is aware of the operations authorized by the other country in
the border area because there is no formal agreement to exchange data
or coordinate use.
According to FCC, frequency band plans are also not consistent along
the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. For example, the
Canadian band plan for 800 MHz is different than the Mexican band plan
primarily because of demographic differences in the border regions.
According to FCC, some degree of harmonized spectrum has been achieved
in the 800 MHz and 700 MHz public safety bands, but interoperability in
the VHF and UHF bands is difficult to achieve because these bands are
highly encumbered and have been operating for many years under
different channel plans and different uses. State and local officials
in Washington state also said they expect that the 700 MHz band will
not be available for the foreseeable future along the Canadian border
because Canada currently restricts use of the 700 MHz band for
television broadcast purposes only. According to these officials,
Canadian authorities have not initiated a process to relocate the
television broadcasters out of the 700 MHz band. In addition, local
Washington officials said that communication barriers result from
border counties using different frequencies and equipment than one
another.
Cross Border Radio Interference:
Interference among users of radio frequency spectrum has been a driving
force in the management of spectrum at the national and international
levels for many years. Interference among these users can occur when
two or more radio signals interact in a manner that disrupts or
degrades the transmission and reception of messages. Our work in
California and Washington state highlighted interference issues with
United States/Mexico and United States/Canada. For example:
* Unlicensed radio users in Mexico cause interference to United States
public safety agencies. For example, some Mexico radio users interfere
with United States public safety communication frequencies because
Mexico does not have complementary regulations governing its frequency
use, according to local California public safety officials.
Furthermore, in the 162-174 MHz band, there is also a problem with
interference to federal government operations. Many of these
interference cases involve unauthorized stations in Mexico.
* According to local public safety officials in California, Mexico does
not limit the frequency power that radios can emit. Mexican taxi radio
users can emit enough power to force public safety radio repeaters in
California to open up, and taxis can use them to make their radio
calls. For example, San Diego County was forced to switch from their
UHF and VHF radio systems to a more expensive 800 MHZ system, in order
to operate without interference. In addition, Imperial County has 30
VHF frequencies potentially available for use but can only use two of
them because of interference from Mexico.
* Interference is also an issue along the Canadian border because
spectrum policies in the United States and Canada are not aligned.
United States-devised solutions will not be able to be used in the
shared Canadian area, according to local Washington State officials.
Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues:
Efforts are underway by the United States to address cross border
problems with Canada and Mexico. According to an NTIA official, NTIA
expects in the long term that agreements will be made with both Canada
and Mexico that will provide equal segments in specified frequency
bands that will be available for exclusive use by each administration.
This type of arrangement will mitigate the problems associated with
different uses, different channeling plans, and different plans for
future use. The official said NTIA is now involved in negotiations with
both countries to develop this type of arrangement and that both Canada
and Mexico are in agreement with this approach. He said that the time
to accomplish the migration of existing use from the segments
designated to the other administration is the main factor that must be
addressed for successful completion of these efforts.
In the short-term, NTIA plans to hold meetings with the Canadian
government about four times a year to complete the negotiation of
segmenting certain bands, to improve coordination procedures, to
identify channels for shared use, and to identify common interference
prediction techniques. With Mexico, NTIA plans in the near term to meet
with a Mexican delegation to negotiate protocols involving the
segmentation of certain land-mobile bands. NTIA also plans to
participate in meetings of the Joint Commission,[Footnote 34] which
meets twice a year to address interference problems between stations of
both countries.
FCC is also in the initial stages of forming an agreement with Canada
on the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which will
include a channel(s) to be used for mutual aid and interoperability. At
this time, Mexico has not allocated the 700 MHz band for public safety.
In other bands where public safety spectrum is not harmonized,
agreements typically define shared use of spectrum, including power
limitations to prevent interference across the border.
Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band:
One question of interest to the Congress is whether a single nationwide
frequency should be designated for public safety in the United States
and as it relates to the United States borders with Canada and Mexico.
Both FCC and NTIA told us that sufficient bands exist for state and
local public safety. FCC said that currently five mutual aid
frequencies in the 800 MHz band are included in agreements with Canada
and Mexico, with the possibility of additional channel(s) in a future
agreement with Canada in the 700 MHz band. Similarly, an NTIA official
told us there are several interoperable frequencies in the 162 MHz to
174 MHz band and the 406-420 MHz band for state and local public
safety.[Footnote 35]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
Public Safety Wireless Communications:
The SAFECOM program has established goals and objectives for the years
2005, 2008, and 2023 in its current work program. This program was
developed in December 2003 at a joint SAFECOM and AGILE planning
meeting with input from federal, state, and local representatives. The
SAFECOM Program Manager said that the SAFECOM Executive Committee
approved the program as developed in the December meeting. Key
objectives for the year 2005 include: the completion of a statement of
requirements for public safety interoperable communications;
establishment of a research, development, test, and evaluation program
for existing and emerging public safety communications and
interoperability; establishment of a technical assistance program for
public safety communications and interoperability; and development of a
process to advance standards necessary to improve public safety
communications and interoperability.
We provide descriptive material on these objectives, including why
SAFECOM believes they are needed, major benefits anticipated if
successfully completed, and key responsibilities of various parties to
their accomplishment.
Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements:
One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability
strategy has been the lack of a statement of national mission
requirements for public safety--what set of communications capabilities
should be built or acquired--and a strategy to get there. A key
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is to complete
a comprehensive Public Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement
is to provide functional requirements that define how, when, and where
public safety practitioners communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS
announced the release of the first comprehensive Statement of
Requirements defining future communication requirements and outlining
future technology needed to meet these requirements. According to DHS,
the statement provides a shared vision and an architectural framework
for future interoperable public safety communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that
will define future communications services as they change or become new
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs, but did not
provide specific details. One example of potential future development
is expanded coverage to include public safety support functions. The
current statement is incomplete because it only addresses the
functional requirements for traditional public safety first responders
- Emergency Medical Services personnel, firefighters, and law
enforcement officers. The statement recognizes the existence of but
does not include in this version those elements of the public safety
community--such as transportation or public utility workers--whose
primary mission provides vital support to public safety officials.
In addition, the frequent changes in SAFECOM management teams and
changing implementation strategies has resulted in major changes in how
SAFECOM intends to achieve its ultimate goals. As originally conceived
while SAFECOM was in the Treasury Department, the program would build
upon Public Safety Wireless Network's (PSWN) efforts to achieve
interoperability among state and local agencies by building an
interoperable federal communications network. The SAFECOM program
implementation strategy changed when the program was transferred to
FEMA to focus on helping first responders make short-term improvements
in interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and
research. At that time, the development of an interoperable federal
system was seen as a long-term goal.
DHS describes SAFECOM's current goals as a vision that by the year
2023:
"There is an integrated system-of-systems, in regular use, that allows
public safety personnel to communicate (voice, data, and video) with
whom they need on demand, in real time, as authorized:
Public safety can respond anywhere, bring their own equipment, and can
work on any network immediately when authorized.
Public safety will have the networking and spectrum resources it needs
to function properly."
SAFECOM officials said under this concept each major region of the
country--for example, New York City, Chicago, and Saint Louis and their
adjacent suburban jurisdictions--will have their own "system" which is
made up of multiple subsystems, such as police agencies, that have
established relationships. Part of the SAFECOM concept is that a
centrally dispatched Urban Search and Rescue team can respond to any of
these cities/regions and operate with the equipment that they bring
with them.
However, a national architecture has not been prepared yet to guide the
creation of interoperable communications. An explicit and commonly
understood and agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to
effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade,
we have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a
crucial means to a challenging goal: agency operational structures that
are optimally defined in both business and technological environments.
Office of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged
SAFECOM with developing a national architecture, which will include
local, state, and federal government architectures. According to these
officials, SAFECOM is to work closely with state and local governments
to establish a basic understanding of what infrastructure currently
exists and to identify public safety communication requirements.
SAFECOM officials said the development of a national architecture will
take time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments
to establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will
then collect the state and local architectures, and fit them into a
national architecture that links federal communications into the state
and local infrastructure.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and
Emerging Public Safety Communications and Interoperability:
The SAFECOM Program Plan includes an objective for 2005 to establish a
research, development and testing, and evaluation program that
identifies and develops a long-term, sustainable technical foundation.
The SAFECOM program plans provide funding and promote coordination
across the federal government to test and evaluate existing
communications and bridging technologies and to create a research and
development program addressing emerging technologies, such as software
defined radio.
Public safety agencies have been addressing communications
interoperability for many years under the name "mutual aid." Under
mutual aid agreements public safety agencies have been monitoring each
other's activities and radio communications through the use of scanners
or exchanging radios. The agencies have built cross-patches into
dispatcher consoles to interconnect radio systems. They also have
agreed on the shared use of specific frequencies for first responders,
such as police forces and fire departments. For example, the state of
California sponsored the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio
System that provides a common set of channels statewide for mutual aid.
Other technology options are also becoming available to public safety
agencies from government agencies and commercial vendors. For example,
the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed and fielded a high
technology system that includes both civilian and military
communications equipment that is capable of satellite communications
and traditional public safety VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz spectrum
bands.[Footnote 36] According to NRL, all bands can be linked to every
other band and to normal telephone lines, private cellular networks,
and satellite links. According to NRL, its system comes in various
sizes and configurations that have been used at the 2002 Olympic Games
and Superbowl XXXVII and can meet other Homeland Security incidents.
New commercial technologies and systems are also becoming available.
According to some state and local officials, they have to rely upon
vendors for information on these new products because they do not have
a single independent source of comprehensive information and the
federal government can play a valuable role in testing and evaluating
these technologies. For example, officials representing the Midwest
Consortium told us that the federal government could create a
clearinghouse of technical support for the state and local agencies.
Therefore, rather than using the equipment vendors for technical advice
on what to purchase and what type of systems to build, the state and
local agencies could look to the federal government for technical
assistance.
But federal officials said there is no single source of data on new
vendor equipment and that their first task is to identify what
equipment is available. For example, federal laboratory officials in
Boulder, Colorado, said they recently conducted a literature search in
which they identified 11 vendors that make 24 models of Project 25
portable/mobile radio equipment, 7 vendors that make 9 models of
conventional Project 25 repeater/base stations equipment, and only 1
vendor that makes Project 25 base stations using trunking technology.
However, they said another center had prepared a list of entirely
different equipment.
Federal laboratory officials said that many of these technologies have
not been tested and that there is no coordinated program today to test
and evaluate vendor equipment and technologies. These officials said
that various federal agencies conduct testing - for example, the Office
of Law Enforcement Standards in the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service.
They said these agencies may also have different test objectives, for
example, the NTIA/ITS laboratory conducts data analysis evaluation,
while the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in
Rome, New York, concentrates primarily on operational testing.
SAFECOM officials said that their role is to coordinate research,
development, test, and evaluation activities for the federal government
as part of their contribution to communications interoperability. They
acknowledged that the federal government has multiple initiatives under
way and that no cohesive plan to coordinate these initiatives exists
today. These officials said SAFECOM plans to create standardized
procedures for uniform testing procedures by the federal government.
However, they said that because the SAFECOM program has not been
authorized, they cannot create a unified research, development, test,
and evaluation program without statutory authority.
Technical Assistance for Interoperable Public Safety Communications:
First responders must have the necessary technical support and training
needed to properly communicate with each other using wireless
communications on a day-to-day basis as well as in emergency
situations. First responders will be challenged to perform at their
best ability, especially during a major incident such as a terrorist
attack or natural disaster. Therefore, ongoing technical assistance and
training is needed.
The SAFECOM Program Plan states that the public safety community
expressed their need for technical assistance, including support for
planning, development, implementation, and assessment of public safety
communications systems. In response, SAFECOM is developing a plan to
provide technical assistance and training to the public safety
community. The plan or work package includes (1) creating a one-stop
shop, which will consist of a Web portal and call in center and (2)
providing training and technical assistance, which will consist of a
practitioner resource group, training and assistance, national calling
channels, and technical assistance publications for the public safety
community. According to SAFECOM officials, the technical assistance
work package has been approved for funding in fiscal year 2005.
State and local government officials told us what a national technical
assistance and outreach program for the public safety community should
include. A Georgia official said that training should also be provided
by the federal government to improve wireless communications among
public safety officials. According to SAFECOM training should consist
of tools and templates to train multiple public safety agencies and
personnel on how to use interoperable communications equipment and
processes. For example, officials from the state of Georgia told us the
federal government should provide programs and assistance to coordinate
the design and implementation of communications systems. Local
officials in the state of Washington agreed that the federal government
could offer staff assistance or technical support to the state and
local public safety officials.
According to local officials in Florida, the federal government should
require that public safety officials have communications training.
These local officials told us that the police are required to train and
pass qualifications for using their gun at least once a year; however,
they use their guns less than their communications equipment. There are
no requirements to train on using the communications equipment. Local
officials in San Diego County told us that the federal government could
use other federal entities, such as the National Accreditation for Law
Enforcement, as a model to educate and train public safety agencies.
The National Accreditation for Law Enforcement could use state agencies
as consultants to provide technical and operation advice to small
localities.
First responders must plan for and train on new technologies or the
technology could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of
emergency responders. The states we visited or contacted are using
gateway technology as a short-term solution to achieving communications
interoperability. However, this technology only patches different
systems together and has to be used properly to be effective. For
example, an official in California told us some public safety officials
caused an entire system to crash at the most critical point of
communications when they used it for the first time during an emergency
because they had not been properly trained on the system. In addition,
use of gateway systems may result in too many people trying to talk, in
turn, taxing the communication systems.
Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications:
State and local public safety officials we talked with told us they
needed national guidance on standards. For example, members of the
Midwest Consortium we spoke with said they needed more national
guidance on standards and technical issues and the establishment of a
national entity made up of federal, state, and local entities that set
standards. However, consortium officials emphasized that federal
communications standards and initiatives must be reasonable, balanced,
and consistent with state and local jurisdictions' funding capabilities
and their communication needs and objectives.
OMB has established the development of standards for first responder
interoperability at all levels of government as a SAFECOM objective.
SAFECOM is to develop these standards by working in partnership with
federal, state, local, and tribal public safety organizations. SAFECOM
is working on a plan to address the development of national standards
to improve public safety communications and interoperability. A key
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is development
of a process to advance standards needed to improve public safety
communications. This initiative will identify, test, and where
necessary, develop standards in coordination with the public safety
community and ongoing standards activities.
In our November 2003 testimony, we noted that a partnership between
industry and the public safety user community developed what is known
as Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office,
P-25 standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the
United States for public safety communications. PSWN believes P-25 is
an important step toward achieving interoperability, but the standards
do not mandate interoperability among all manufacturers' systems.
Federal officials also told us significant work remains to complete the
development of the Project 25 standards and to test vendor equipment
against these standards. The SAFECOM work plan states that SAFECOM will
devote resources to accelerate the completion of the Project 25 suite
of standards and create a common radio nomenclature for first
responders.
Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment:
One problem that occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, was
that incompatible radio systems prevented police and fire department
personnel from talking to one another. The DHS Secretary recently
announced that DHS has identified technical specifications for a
baseline interoperable communications system as the short-term solution
to allow first responders to communicate by voice--no matter what
frequency on which they are operating. SAFECOM officials said that the
specifications the Secretary referred to are for generic bridging
technologies that interconnect first responders' different land mobile
radios. According to these officials, the Secretary has also determined
that local emergency-based communications interoperability
capabilities should be in locations of critical concern by December
2004. These officials said that this date is the deadline for putting
an interim solution in place for interoperable radio communications for
police, fire, and emergency first responders.
Some states are already using the bridging equipment or audio switches
identified as a short-term solution by DHS and have identified several
nontechnical barriers to successful use of the equipment. A state
official in California told us that first responders need to plan their
use of these technologies and become trained on using the technology,
or it could have a negative impact on emergency response to an
incident. This official said, for example, that some public safety
officials had not been properly trained on using one vendor's system,
causing the system to fail at a critical point the first time they used
the system in an emergency. According to this official, this technology
must be used properly to be effective. Local officials in the State of
Washington also told us that multiple units of these systems could
overload communications because too many officials are trying to talk
at the same time. A federal laboratory official said the bridging or
audio switches provide the benefits of interoperability of disparate
radio systems but have several shortfalls. These shortfalls include a
requirement that users be within coverage of their home radio systems
and that the use of bridging equipment may require pre-incident
coordination. He said there are 4 major vendors, and about 30 vendors
in total that make bridging equipment. He said testing has been
conducted on only 2 of the major vendors' equipment.
Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent
Assessments of Alternative Technologies:
State and local officials said they want an independent source of
information on new products and that the federal government can play a
valuable role in providing that information. SAFECOM officials said
they intend to include their bridging specifications in federal grant
guidance as a condition for using federal funds to purchase bridging
equipment. However, they said that the specifications for such
equipment may be released and in use before their testing program for
switches and bridging technologies is complete. They said public safety
agencies must rely on vendor data to determine whether the untested
systems meet DHS's requirements. SAFECOM officials also recognize that
significant training on such equipment must accompany the delivery of
the equipment to first responders. The officials said COPS and ODP have
developed a template for providing technical assistance training for
bridging equipment.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve:
State and local governments play a large, perhaps defining, role in
resolving the communications interoperability problem. As recognized by
the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in
managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency
incidents. FCC also said that states are usually in the best position
to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. According to
the National Strategy for Homeland Security,[Footnote 37] local
officials stress that they are the first to respond to any incident and
the last to leave the scene of an incident. According to the SAFECOM
program, state and local governments also own 90 percent of the public
safety communications infrastructure.
In our November 2003 testimony, we identified fragmented planning and
cooperation as the key barrier to improving interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. In the past, a stovepiped,
single jurisdiction or agency-specific systems development approach
prevailed--resulting in none or less than desired interoperable
communications systems. Public safety agencies have historically
planned and acquired communications systems for their own jurisdictions
without concern for interoperability. This meant that each state and
local agency developed communications systems to meet their own
requirements, without regard to interoperability requirements to talk
to adjacent jurisdictions. For example, a PSWN analysis of Fire and EMS
communications interoperability found a significant need for
coordinated approaches, relationship building, and information
sharing. However, the PSWN program office found that public safety
agencies have traditionally developed or updated their radio systems
independently to meet specific mission needs.
The PSWN program also concluded that state leaders can, through
memorandums of understanding (MOU), help to define interagency
relationships, reach procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of
statewide or regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint
efforts to deploy communications technology. State and local officials
that we talked with generally agree that states can coordinate
communications planning and funding support for state communications
systems and coordinate local governments' interoperability efforts. For
example, several officials said the state can facilitate the planning
process by including key stakeholder input in the decision making
process and ensure that communications interoperability issues are
addressed. However, officials also see state roles in providing common
infrastructure and developing routine training exercises.
Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions
that coordinate and facilitate efforts to address problems of
interoperable communications within their states. For example, as we
indicated previously, states we visited have or are in the process of
establishing SIECs to enhance communications interoperability
planning, including the development of interoperability plans and
administration of interoperability spectrum. California in 2003 also
established the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee
(PSRSPC) to develop and implement a statewide integrated public safety
communications system for state government agencies that facilitates
interoperability and other shared uses of public safety spectrum with
local and federal agencies. In Florida, the governor issued an
executive order in 2001 to establish seven Regional Domestic Security
Task Forces that make up the entire state. Each of the regional task
forces has a committee on interoperable communications under Florida's
State Working Group. The Florida legislature supported that effort by
establishing the task forces in law and formally designating the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency
Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces consist of agencies
from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public health and
hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes
partnerships with education/schools, business, and private industry.
In addition, planning on a regional basis is key to interoperable
communications systems development. The Public Safety Wireless Network
report also notes that although in the past public safety agencies have
addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently,
local, state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they
cannot do it alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels
of government are now taking action to improve coordination and
facilitate multijurisdictional interoperability. We talked with
officials from several state and local agencies about their efforts to
address interoperability issues on a regional basis. For example:
* In Georgia and Washington, state and local emergency consequence
planning continues to be structured around the all-hazards planning
model and are broken down into regions. The regions are made up of one
or more counties that include cities, towns, and tribal nations within
the regional geographical boundaries. This regional configuration was
implemented to develop regional interoperability plans, distribute
federal grant funds, develop emergency responder equipment priority
lists, plan and execute training exercises, create regionally based
mutual aid plans, and develop volunteer infrastructure to support
citizens' involvement in homeland security initiatives.
* The King County Regional Communications Board system in Washington
State is a multijurisdictional coordination body. Communication
decisions are made by the group and not made by individual
jurisdictions. This regional cooperation is informal and not legislated
or mandated.
* The San Diego County Regional Communications System was established
in 1994 to provide an interoperable wireless network available to all
public safety agencies.
State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not
enough because incident first responders face could cross boundaries.
Thus, some states are also taking actions to address interstate
interoperability problems. For example, state officials from Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio said their states have combined
efforts to form the Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to
promote interstate interoperability. These officials told us that the
governors of their five member states plan to sign an MOU with each
other to signify that each state is willing to be interoperable with
the other states and provide communication assistance and resources to
the other states, to the extent that it does not harm their own state.
According to these officials, they also have taken actions to form an
interstate committee to develop interoperability plans and solicit
support from key players such as local public safety agencies. The
benefits of the consortium are increased interoperability on a larger
regional basis, an exchange of technical information, greater power
over vendor manipulation because of increased purchasing power, an
exchange of pricing and technical information, and lessons learned from
their collective experiences.
Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability:
Although efforts are underway to address communications
interoperability issues, state and local public safety officials face
challenges in addressing communications interoperability. According to
state and local public safety officials, some of the key challenges
they are confronted with today include (1) multiple statewide
communication systems, (2) turf or control issues, and (3) lack of
communications training for public safety officials.
Federal officials told us that states have multiple state
communications systems that make communications interoperability
planning more difficult. The states we visited have multiple statewide
communications systems. For example, in the state of Washington, the
departments of Transportation, Corrections, and Health use
communication systems operating in the 800 MHz frequency band, while
the National Guard and Emergency Management Division operate
communications systems with the spectrum reserved for federal agencies.
The remainder of the state agencies operates in the 150 MHz frequency
band. Similarly, Florida has several statewide systems such as State
Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) and Forestry systems that are not
compatible. Because the forestry system operates on a different
frequency band than SLERS, it does not allow users to communicate with
law enforcement except through console patches. The SLERS was
originally designed primarily for 8 state law enforcement entities.
Membership now includes 17 law enforcement entities in 15 state
agencies.
Some local jurisdictions also have multiple communications systems. For
example, San Diego and Imperial Counties have developed and implemented
a radio system referred to as the Regional Communications System (RCS).
RCS's primary mission is to provide an interoperable wireless network
available to all public safety and public service agencies within the
counties, regardless of jurisdiction or level of government. However,
according to local public safety officials in California, political,
funding, and technology limitations such as incompatible communications
equipment have prevented full participation in the system by the city
of San Diego and other jurisdictions in the counties. According to a
local government official in California, however, RCS and the city have
collaborated on planning the transition from their current systems to a
P-25 compatible system, which he said will provide seamless
interoperability for all public safety agencies operating in the
Southern California region.
According to PSWN, efforts to develop and implement regional or shared
systems are hindered by perceptions that management control of radio
system development and operations will be lost. As a result,
coordination and partnership efforts do not evolve, and "stop gap"
measures are implemented to address specific interoperability
requirements. Interoperable communications is meaningless unless first
responders overcome turf issues and learn to cooperate in any given
incident, according to Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium
members. The Consortium members said that the technical part of
building interoperability is easy, compared with the political and
operational issues. As a result, the planning process for addressing
political and operational issues is vital.
In the state of Washington, a potential obstacle to effective
coordination may lie in the historical relationship between state and
local governments. The state has 39 counties and 268 towns and
counties. According to a Century Foundation report, local and regional
governments in Washington have a long tradition of home rule and
independent action, which makes it difficult for state officials to
coordinate the activities of the units of local government. Washington
state and local officials said that the political power in the state is
decentralized, and the local city and county governments may resist
state-driven mandates. Things get done on a consensus basis at the
local level.
According to local officials in Washington, that type of relationship
does not exist between the state and local jurisdictions or the federal
agencies and local jurisdictions. Regionally based planning is
problematic due to resistance by locally elected officials, lack of
trust between officials in different jurisdictions or disciplines, and
competition over resources, according to a Century Foundation report.
For example, one of the concerns of the Washington SIEC planning group
was that the state could not force locals to participate or adhere to
the development of a statewide communications plan, they could only
invite locals to participate.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
Interoperability Planning:
Federal grant funds can be used to facilitate and encourage coordinated
regional planning. However, there are currently several challenges to
the ability to use these funds to support the long-term coordinated
regional planning that we have identified as being essential to
improving interoperable communications. First, federal funds are
structured to address short-term needs for the development of
interoperability projects rather than long-term planning needs for
communications interoperability. Second, federal grants have
inconsistent requirements to plan regionally. Third, the first
responders grant structure is fragmented, which can complicate
coordination and integration of services and planning at the state and
local levels, and has presented additional barriers to federal efforts
to coordinate communications funds. Fourth, uncoordinated federal and
state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that
funds are used to improve regional and statewide communications
interoperability.
First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term
Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs:
A study conducted in 1998 estimated the current replacement value of
the existing public safety LMR infrastructure nationwide at $18.3
billion.[Footnote 38] According to a PSWN report, DHS officials have
said that this estimate is much higher when infrastructure and training
costs are taken into account. In addition, reaching an accelerated goal
for improving communications interoperability will require a major
investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years.
The estimated cost of an LMR system for a state or local jurisdiction
can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars,
depending on the size and type of system being implemented. According
to PSWN, these cost estimates account only for the procurement of the
equipment and infrastructure and do not include ongoing operation and
maintenance costs. According to another Public Safety Wireless network
(PSWN) funding report, the extraordinary investment in LMR systems
makes obtaining the necessary funding to finance the replacement or
upgrade of LMR systems one of the greatest challenges facing public
safety agencies. This is especially true because public safety
communications systems typically reach the end of their useful life
cycle in 8 to 10 years. In addition, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) and Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) have established a new migration plan that will
require that all federal and state and local public safety agencies
replace current LMR equipment with narrowband (12.5 kHz) equipment by
2008 and 2018, respectively. Federal funding is but one of several
resources state and local agencies must utilize in order to address
these financial challenges.
State and local public safety officials say that they do not have
reliable federal funding support for the planning costs associated with
the long-term development of interoperable communications. State and
locals officials from states that we visited identified the lack of a
sustained funding source for communications as a major barrier. Local
officials emphasized that public safety agencies need a re-occurring
source of funds for communications because interoperability barriers
cannot be fixed with a one-time grant.[Footnote 39] For example, local
public safety officials from Washington state asserted that, once the
granted project is complete, locals still have intense fiscal pressures
to face in the support and operation of the communication systems. As a
result, state and local agencies need to provide assurances that they
can sustain the projects that the grants have developed. However, they
emphasized that further federal support is needed to help with these
costs. Officials from Georgia and California also expressed the need
for federal support in addressing on-going costs and suggested creating
a dedicated source of funds similar to the interstate highway program
or 911 tax to assist states with implementing the long-term solutions.
We have identified several federal grants that can be used to address
first responder communications (See table 1.) Among these grants, in
fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated funds for two programs
specifically dedicated to improving first responder interoperable
communications. However, since 2003, the funding for these grant
programs has changed significantly. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) received approximately $154 million to provide
grants for interoperable communications equipment[Footnote 40]. In
fiscal year 2004 FEMA's line-item budget for this program was cut and
was not explicitly picked up anywhere else in DHS. The COPS program was
awarded only $85 million as the sole source for the interoperable
communications equipment grant for fiscal year 2004. In addition, the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal allocates no funds for the
Interoperable Communications Equipment grant program to the DHS and
suggests reductions in other funding sources that state and locals are
eligible to use for communications interoperability. For more details
on changes to these funding sources, see table 1.
Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability
Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Dollars in millions.
FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment Grant[A];
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
FY 2003: $80.
COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, DOJ;
FY 2003: $75;
FY 2004: $85.
Homeland Security Grant Program[B];
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness, DHS;
FY 2003: $2,066;
FY 2004: $1,700.
Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness, DHS;
FY 2003: $596;
FY 2004: $725.
Assistance to Fire-fighters Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness,[C] DHS;
FY 2003: $750;
FY 2004: $750.
Emergency Management Performance Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
FY 2003: $165;
FY 2004: $180.
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
FY 2003: $60;
FY 2004: $60.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, DOJ;
FY 2003: $400;
FY 2004: $225.
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Discretionary Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, DOJ;
FY 2003: $151;
FY 2004: $159.
Source: GAO analysis of congressional appropriations, the president's
fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, DHS, DOJ, and Catalogue of Federal
Domestic Assistance data.
Notes: The fiscal year 2003 FEMA and COPS Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants were grants specifically targeted toward improving
first responder communication equipment to increase interoperability.
[A] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The
new grant program includes three different grant programs.
[B] Until fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by FEMA.
[C] The president's fiscal year 2005 Budget Proposal funds this program
under the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
[End of table]
Local, state, and federal officials agree that regional communications
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal
funds for interoperable communications. However, the officials
emphasize that federal grant conditions and requirements do not support
this planning process. While there are several grants to assist first
responders in preparing for emergency response, state and local public
safety officials from the states that we visited said that these grants
do not provide adequate support for dedicated staff resources for
communications planning or allow adequate time for state and locals to
plan. Officials emphasized that most public safety organizations that
are tasked with addressing the planning functions for the operational,
technical, and coordination needs of communications systems, such as
Regional Planning Committees, State Interoperability Executive
Committees, and system managers rely on volunteer efforts of first
responders, who also have full-time duties in their regular jobs.
With new spectrum policies for narrow banding, local first responders
are skeptical that they will have the staff resources to meet
potentially significant additional workloads in these new challenges.
For example, managers of a regional communication system serving
multiple counties in Washington state documented this concern in a 2003
filing to the FCC. The filing stated,
"The success of the regional planning approach can no longer be left to
the volunteer efforts of the engaged public entities, particularly for
something as complicated and intense as the re-banding proposed in the
Supplemental Filing. All local governments are stretched to the maximum
in our combined situation of economic challenges and security
uncertainty. This has a limiting effect on the ability of the skilled
personnel who normally engage in the regional planning efforts to
continue engagement at the high levels that would be necessary to deal
with a re-banding effort. This is even more the case in the complex
border areas where numerous technical, procedural and perhaps political
issues need to be resolved to make the effort a success. Region 43
strongly supports the need for a national pool of experts and funding
to work with the RPCs as they undertake the re-banding in their
Regions. These need to be people and resources that can do the hard
work of inventorying systems, understanding spectrum relationships,
evaluating the unique terrain and topography of the area and helping
establish technically and operationally competent migration strategies
that work for the unique situations of each Region— But Committees on
their own can't do this work effectively, and left to their own
resources, we will see staggered and inconsistent results across the
country."
Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:
As we mentioned previously, creating communications interoperability
requires a coordinated regional approach. Recent grant requirements
have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning,
which has resulted in more local efforts to plan using a
multidisciplinary and multi-jurisdictional approach rather than the
stove-piped planning that formerly existed. For example, grant criteria
used in the fiscal year 2003 COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants encouraged multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary
approaches, which resulted in grants being given to applicants that
developed regional and multidisciplinary partnerships. For example,
officials from Florida that received the COPS grant award for $6
million told us that as a result of this encouraged regional approach,
they applied for the grant using a consortium of nine counties that
formed a plan for interoperability and will use the funds on a
multiregional basis to increase interoperability within and among their
jurisdictions. State and local officials that we spoke with said that
the federal government needs to do more to encourage regional
communications planning and that this requirement should be made a
condition of receiving grants.
In our November 6 testimony, we also identified coordinated planning
for communications interoperability as a pre-requisite to effectively
addressing communication issues. However, current federal first
responder grants are inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding
to interoperable communications plans. States and locals are not
required to provide an interoperable communications plan as a pre-
requisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result, there is
no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a well-
developed strategy for improving interoperability. For example:
* The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) requires
states to conduct a needs assessment and submit a State Homeland
Security Strategy to Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP); however,
the required strategy is high-level and broad in nature. It does not
require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be
submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
* The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant requires a Needs
Assessment and Urban Area Strategy to be developed by grantees, but
also does not require project narratives or detailed plans.
* The COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants did
not require that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving
grant funds. However, grantees were required to provide documentation
that they were actively engaged in a planning process and a
multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary project narrative was
required for submission. If applicants intended to use the funds to
support a project that was previously developed, they were required to
submit the plan for review.
An ODP program official acknowledged that requirements to develop a
detailed communications needs assessment are missing and that ODP is
currently developing an assessment tool. The official said that
grantees could use this tool to assess their specific communication
needs and conduct a gap analysis. The analysis would be used by the
jurisdictions to develop an interoperable communications plan that
would support the State and Urban Area Homeland Security strategies.
State and local public safety officials that we spoke with reported
that because of the lack of federal requirements to submit plans for
interoperable communications; some federal grant funds are being spent
on individual projects without a plan to guide these expenditures.
States that we visited received federal funds that could be used for
communications, but did not have statewide communications plans to
guide decisions on local requests for federal funds. To combat this
concern, the state of Washington Emergency Management Division said
that it is holding back on allocating its obligated funds until its
State Executive Interoperability Committee has developed a statewide
communications plan that can be used to guide decisions on local
request for communication funds.
In addition to variations in requirements to create communications
interoperability plans, federal grants lack consistency in defining
what "regional" body should conduct planning. Regions are defined
differently by different federal agencies. The COPS office, which
provided grant funds for interoperable communications equipment,
defined eligible regions as Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSA's).[Footnote 41] The Office for Domestic Preparedness' (ODP) Urban
Areas Security Initiative's provided grants to "urban area" regions,
which were defined--in some cases--as a subset of a MSA. On the other
hand, FEMA awarded its grants for interoperable communications
equipment based upon a jurisdictional nomination from the state
governor. Furthermore, FCC has defined regions for communications
planning based upon other characteristics. However, all four of the
agencies encourage state and locals to conduct "regional" planning for
communications.
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:
In addition to resources for planning, first responders emphasized that
the limited time provided to first responders to conduct planning for
communications interoperability before submission of grants presents a
barrier. State and local officials from the Office of Emergency
Management Services expressed concern about their inability to develop
effective plans within the current grant timeframes. State officials
from California's Office of Emergency Management said that the short
turn around timeframe on the ODP Homeland Security and UASI grants
limited their ability to perform a high-level grant review or assist
with local planning. ODP required that grantees submit a proposal
within 30 days of the announcement. As a result, state officials said
that they were allowed only enough time to review whether local grant
proposals matched an itemized equipment list provided by ODP and could
not perform an evaluation of local grant proposals or provide
assistance to the locals in planning for and writing their grants. A
representative from a county Office of Emergency Services in California
expressed the same sentiment. He said that grants are coming with such
short timeframes that localities are operating with a total lack of
information before submitting the grants. He stressed that states and
localities need time to study what they need in order to get something
worthwhile. Officials from the other three states that we visited--
Florida, Georgia, and Washington--also articulated similar concerns.
Similar to state and local officials, federal officials expressed
concerns about first responders' ability to plan for long-term regional
communication systems within the current 30 or 60 day submission time
frames allotted for the grants. Officials from SAFECOM said that in
order to alleviate the previous stove pipe communications planning of
agencies, regional planning should be a pre-requisite to receiving
federal funds. However, they emphasized that if planning were required
as a condition for receiving grants, states would have to be given
enough lead time to prepare a successful plan. The officials said that
the current time frames placed on grants does not allow states or
jurisdictions enough time to effectively create a communications plan
that would make the most efficient use of federal funds. Adequate lead
time may be a 1 or 2 year planning period. In addition, states should
be given a planning model to demonstrate how to successfully plan for
communications--including creating a governance structure as the first
step. SAFECOM officials said that they are trying to develop this type
of model in the Commonwealth of Virginia. ODP is also developing a
similar model in Kansas City, Missouri.
COPS officials administering the fiscal year 2003 Interoperable
Communications Technology grant also said that requiring that a
communications plan be developed prior to receiving grants would be a
positive thing, if the grantees were given an appropriate amount of
time to develop a plan before submission--perhaps several months. They
noted that they did not require that grantees have a communications
plan developed prior to receiving federal funds because the grantees
only had 30 days from the grant announcement to submit their proposals.
The Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, Assistance to Firefighters
grants also allow states only 30 or 60 days to submit a grant proposal.
Demonstration grants also have been awarded to state and locals for
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance
periods and do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance
to Firefighters Grant, COPS and FEMA's Interoperable Communications
Equipment grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue Response System
grants all have 1-year performance periods.[Footnote 42] UASI, HSGP,
and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.
Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits
Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels:
In our 2003 testimony,[Footnote 43] we pointed out that the federal
first responder grant programs' structure was fragmented, which can
complicate coordination and integration of services and planning at the
state and local levels. We also highlighted the variation in grant
requirements for first responders grants. For example, DHS's Assistance
to Firefighters grant had a maintenance of effort requirement while the
Fire Training Systems grant had no similar requirement.
In this report, we find that fragmentation exists within Communications
Interoperability grants that presents challenges to federal efforts to
coordinate and streamline the funding process. Multiple agencies
provide communication interoperability funding and have different
guidelines and appropriations language that define how the funds can be
used. A list of interoperable communications grant sources from 2003
through 2004 within DHS and DOJ and their eligible uses are listed in
table 2.
Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and
Their Eligible Uses:
Grant name/description: FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment
Grant[A];
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: No.
Grant name/description: COPS Interoperable Communications Technology
Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, DOJ;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: No.
Grant name/description: Homeland Security Grant Program[B];
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness, DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes.
Grant name/description: Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness, DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes.
Grant name/description: Assistance to Fire-fighters Grant;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for
Domestic Preparedness,[C] DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: No;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No.
Grant name/description: Emergency Management Performance Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes.
Grant name/description: National Urban Search and Rescue Response
System;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: No;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes.
Grant name/description: Local Law Enforcement Block Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, DOJ;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No.
Grant name/description: Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants;
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, DOJ;
Equipment acquisition: Yes;
Planning: No;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS and DOJ data.
[A] The Homeland Security Grant and all other grants listed, with the
exception of the FEMA and COPS "Interoperable Communications Equipment
grants," provide funding for various emergency preparedness activities,
which may include improving interoperable communications.
[B] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The
new grant program includes three different grant programs.
[C] Until fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by the FEMA.
[End of table]
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants,
various agencies have statutory language that make it difficult to
coordinate their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said
that certain statutory provisions underlying the grant programs
presented barriers to the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and
SAFECOM to consolidate the grant application process for the 2003
Interoperable Communications Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA
coordinated their application process for the grants and used sections
of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their application requirements.
According to COPS and FEMA officials, the combined COPS and FEMA
application process was intended to maximize the use of funds and
reduce duplication and competition between the two agencies'
Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials explained that
COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a combined grant
application process because the COPS grant required a twenty-five
percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a requirement.
However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent match of
"in-kind" resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce
competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.
In addition to matching requirements, the underlying statutory language
for COPS and FEMA interoperable communications grants made it difficult
to incorporate some of the SAFECOM grant guidance recommendations. For
example, SAFECOM grant guidance recommended that applicants conduct
planning for developing public safety communications and specified
eligible planning activities. However, the underlying statutory
language for the COPS and FEMA grants focuses on the purchase of
equipment without specifically addressing planning. COPS and FEMA
officials said that they were able to justify allowing certain planning
activities directly related to the purchase of equipment, but could not
require that funds be used to develop a communications system. SAFECOM
grant guidance also recommended addressing maintenance and other life-
cycle costs of communications equipment; however, the statutory
language underlying COPS and FEMA interoperable communications
equipment grants focuses on funding the purchase of equipment rather
than maintenance and other related costs.
No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:
Federal officials that we spoke with agreed that, generally, there is
no high-level review of communications interoperability across the
federal government to ensure that the full range of granted projects
compliment each other and add to overall statewide and national
interoperability. Each agency reviews its own set of applications and
projects. As a result, grants can be given to bordering jurisdictions
that propose conflicting interoperability solutions. For fiscal year
2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate
awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within bordering
jurisdictions by selecting different applicant pools and coordinating
their review of grant proposals. The COPS office selected the largest
MSAs from each state and territory as well as the 50 largest MSA's
regardless of state, to apply for COPS funds.[Footnote 44] FEMA
requested that the governor of each state nominate one lead
jurisdiction to submit a grant proposal, taking into account the
state's demographics and the location of critical infrastructure. In
addition to selecting applicants from different jurisdictions, COPS and
FEMA engaged in a process to ensure that projects from neighboring
jurisdictions did not conflict with or duplicate each other. The
collaboration that occurred between COPS and FEMA to review the 2003
Interoperable Communications Equipment grant proposals was a step
forward, however, these agencies constitute only two of several federal
agencies that provide funds for communications interoperability.
A coordinated high-level review of key federal grant programs that
award funds for communication purposes does not exist. In response to
this challenge, SAFECOM has recently sponsored the formation of the
Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which includes a
federal grant coordination working group. The FICC is an informal
council consisting of federal agencies, whose mission is to help local,
tribal, state and federal public safety agencies improve public safety
response through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless
communications by reducing duplication in programs and activities,
identifying and promoting best practices and coordinating federal
grants, technical assistance, training, and standards.[Footnote 45]
Federal officials said that FICC will assist in shaping the common
grant guidance for federal initiatives involving public safety
communications. As of April 23, 2004, officials said that FICC has held
two meetings.
State governments that we visited also did not have a coordinated or
centralized grant review process to ensure that communications grant
funds in the programs that we reviewed were being used to support
projects that were complimentary and not duplicative. Florida State
Technology Office (STO) officials, who are members of Florida's
Domestic Security Oversight Board (DSOB), said that the DSOB was
concerned that there was no overall centralized review of grant
applications for federal funding and no central review of federal funds
passing through the state to local governments.[Footnote 46] For
example, STO has the statutory authority to review plans for new or
expanded communication systems. However, STO officials said that some
local communications plans are not reviewed by the state because there
is no requirement that locals must submit their plan to STO for review
before grant approval.[Footnote 47] Florida is now developing a funding
working group under the DSOB to review funding requests for
communication interoperability.
Officials that we spoke with in California also acknowledged that there
has been no centralized grant review process for funds that can be used
for communications interoperability. Officials from the grants
administration division within the Office of Emergency Services said
that they do not have a centralized review of grant funds in California
because several state and local agencies receive funds directly to
their agencies or jurisdictions from the federal government.
Local officials were concerned that this lack of a coordinated review
of grants used across the state for communications interoperability can
result in grants being awarded to bordering jurisdictions or localities
that propose conflicting interoperability solutions and, therefore,
compound existing barriers to regional or statewide interoperability.
As a result, the state of Washington has set up a structure to
facilitate centralized grant review of federal and state funding to
ensure that they promote regional interoperability. Officials intend to
use a statewide communications plan being developed by their State
Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) to review local funding
proposals.
No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate
Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions:
Currently, there is no database that can be used as a tool for
coordinating federal or state oversight of funding for interoperable
communications systems. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with
DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate
federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to
neighboring jurisdictions and allow states access to this information
for planning purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication
of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process,
maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data
collection tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state
and locals. According to federal officials, this database is
operational; however, its use is limited in its ability to coordinate
federal oversight of grant funds for several reasons. First, the
database does not contain information from the majority of relevant
federal agencies and SAFECOM has no enforcement authority to require
that all federal agencies provide information to the database or use it
guide decisions in their grant approval process.
In addition, SAFECOM officials said that it is unclear how to obtain
the needed information from formula grants on the use of federal funds
for communications. The State Homeland Security grant issued by ODP is
a large grant provided to states that can be used for communications
interoperability, among other things. However, federal officials said
that once these funds enter the states, there is no reporting
obligation on the use of the funds by jurisdiction--this information is
lost. According to these officials, formula grants that go directly to
the jurisdictions, like the ODP UASI grants, have the potential to be
tracked and used within the database if ODP provides application and
award information for the database. The officials said that, as a
result of limitations that may exist in obtaining the relevant
information from formula grants, the database would likely only include
information from discretionary grants, earmarks, or grants provided
directly to the local jurisdictions.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE:
Washington, D. C. 20230:
July 12, 2004:
Mr. William 0. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for providing the Department of Commerce with an opportunity
to comment on the General Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report
entitled Homeland Security: Achieving Interoperable Communications
Among First Responders Requires Cooperation (GAO-04-740). The
Department is pleased to see that GAO recognizes the important
leadership role that the Federal Government can play in achieving
interoperability goals for first responders.
I appreciate the efforts of the GAO in investigating and reporting on
the complex issues surrounding public safety communications
interoperability. The Administration fully supports the highest level
of attention to the ability of our Nation's first responders to
communicate effectively. The Bush Administration has accomplished a
good deal in addressing first responder interoperability, including
coordination of federal grant programs, encouraging advanced
technological development, and improving coordination among public
safety officials at all levels of government. As your draft report
indicates, more can be done.
The Department of Commerce strives to encourage the best technology and
most effective telecommunications and spectrum policies to deal with
the rapidly changing communications requirements of public safety
agencies. To that end, the Department of
Commerce released two spectrum policy reports on June 24TH in response
to the President's Initiative, entitled Spectrum Policy for the 21st
Century. In these reports, the Department documents a year-long,
interagency effort to study and recommend improvements to the spectrum
management system in the United States. These reports make specific
recommendations dealing with interoperability among federal, state, and
local public safety agencies. Of particular note to your inquiry,
Report 2 recommends an interagency effort to study the spectrum use and
needs of the public safety community, a public safety demonstration
program, and a comprehensive plan to address the spectrum shortage,
interference, technology, and security issues of the public safety
community. The Department of Homeland Security would be an integral
partner in fulfilling these recommendations. Both reports are available
on the Web site of the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov.
I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional
questions about the Department of Commerce's role in improving
communications interoperability among our nation's first responders,
please contact Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Michael D. Gallagher at (202) 482-1840.
Signed by:
Sincerely,
Donald L. Evans
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
July 8, 2004:
Mr. Norman J. Rabkin:
Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GAO Draft Report: Homeland Security: Achieving Interoperable
Communications Among First Responders Requires Cooperation, GAO-04-
740; GAO Engagement 440234:
Dear Mr. Rabkin:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft
report to the Honorable Tom Davis, the Honorable Christopher Shays, and
the Honorable Adam H. Putnam, House Committee on Government Reform,
entitled "HOMELAND SECURITY: Achieving Interoperable Communications
Among First Responders Requires Cooperation", GAO-04-740, June 2004.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agrees with GAO's assessment
that interoperable communications among public safety first responders
is essential. Unfortunately, in many cases, agencies cannot perform
their mission critical duties because they are unable to share vital
voice or data information via radio with other jurisdictions in day-to-
day operations and in emergency response to incidents including acts of
terrorism and natural disasters.
To address this public safety need, SAFECOM works with existing federal
communications initiatives and key public safety stakeholders to
address the need to develop better technologies and processes for the
cross jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing
systems and future networks. SAFECOM was established as an E-Government
(E-Gov) initiative and placed in DHS to serve as the umbrella program
within the federal government to help local, tribal, state, and federal
public safety agencies improve public safety response through more
effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications. By
definition, communications interoperability is the ability of public
safety agencies to talk across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio
communications systems, exchanging voice and/or data with one another
on demand, in real time, when needed and as authorized. [NOTE 1] As a
program driven by public safety practitioners, SAFECOM harnesses
diverse federal resources in service of the public safety community.
The solution to the problems of public safety communications and
communications interoperability is not a single or even a set of
discrete tasks. There is no simple solution. Instead, the
identification and orchestration of many programs over various time
periods is required.
SAFECOM's Mission:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) originally defined SAFECOM's
mission in three parts: (1) coordination of federal activities; (2)
developing standards; and (3) developing a national architecture. To
accomplish these goals, SAFECOM has taken a systematic approach towards
addressing the problem. This approach began in May 2003 when the
program was transferred to the Directorate for Science and Technology
(S&T) at DHS. Included in this approach are the following steps.
Identify the problem, recognizing that it is a problem with many
complex elements. SAFECOM recognizes that before interoperability can
occur, reliable, mission-critical, agency-specific communications are
essential for public safety agencies. SAFECOM also recognizes that more
than ninety percent of the public safety communications infrastructure
is owned and operated at the local and state level. Addressing the
problems of communications interoperability will therefore require
involvement of the local and state public safety and government
communities.
SAFECOM recognized early the need to earn the trust and participation
of the national associations representing local and state public and
government officials. A governance structure was developed and
implemented by SAFECOM to incorporate these local and state
stakeholders. This governance structure also includes federal emergency
response providers, and SAFECOM continues to support the Federal
Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC) [NOTE 2] as a means
of addressing the unique issues related to federal interoperability.
Evidence of the success of this strategy can be seen by the recent
letter of support developed by ten of the major local and state public
safety associations.
Work with the leadership of the public safety community to gather
comprehensive needs and requirements in order to develop appropriate
approaches to solutions, referred to as work packages. SAFECOM recently
released the first ever comprehensive Public Safety Communications
Statement of Requirements (SoR) outlining what public safety needs to
effectively communicate in their response to emergencies. This SoR was
developed in full partnership with the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) and the Department of Justice's
AGILE Program (now referred to as CommTech). [NOTE 3]
In partnership with the leadership of the public safety community,
develop a process by which to systematically attach the problems and
needs to programmatic solutions. SAFECOM has drafted a plan for a
technical architectural framework for public safety communications. The
strategy for the plan is centered on the development of an
architectural framework that satisfies the real-world requirements of
public safety responders. The framework outlines what the overall
structured approach is for facilitating interoperability. Functional
standards then define the details of the structure, and indicate how
the architecture (and its components) will operate.
Identify current initiatives addressing this problem and develop a
coordination strategy to leverage existing work while decreasing
unnecessary duplication of efforts. Beginning at the National Summit on
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability in June 2003,
SAFECOM, in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and the former AGILE Program, developed an extensive
database on federal programs and national organization efforts aimed at
improving public safety communications at all levels of government. The
resulting survey, assessment, and database allow SAFECOM to effectively
identify and coordinate relevant programs.
Implement the solutions strategy to develop short-and long-term
projects to address public safety communications and communications
interoperability needs. In December 2003, SAFECOM hosted its first
complete stakeholder strategy meeting in San Diego, California. The
resulting strategy outlined short-and long-term projects that the
stakeholders felt were absolutely necessary for SAFECOM to pursue in
order to improve interoperability. SAFECOM has since obligated
resources for each of these projects in its budget, but is still
waiting to receive funding from its federal funding partners.
SAFECOM's Philosophy:
Emphasis on Coordination:
These accomplishments are just examples of the successful steps SAFECOM
has taken over the course of the last year. In addition, to fulfill its
mission as an umbrella program, SAFECOM has sponsored the creation of a
Federal Interagency Coordination Council (FICC) to coordinate funding,
technical assistance and standards development across the federal
government for communications and interoperability. The FICC is
comprised of the National Institute of Justice's CommTech (formally
known as AGILE), the DHS Wireless Management Office, Department of
Justice Wireless Management Office, Department of Agriculture, Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National
Telecommunications Industry Administration, Federal Communications
Commission, Department of Defense, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and others. SAFECOM is creating partnerships among diverse
federal programs to streamline methodologies employed in efforts to
improve communications interoperability.
One of the ways that SAFECOM coordinates federal activities is through
the development of coordinated grant guidance, which outlines
eligibility for grants, the purposes for which grants may be used, and
guidelines for implementing a wireless communication system. Although
SAFECOM does not have grant making authority, it has created this grant
guidance, with input from the public safety community, in order to help
to maximize the efficiency with which public safety, communications-
related grant dollars are allocated and spent. The SAFECOM grant
guidance was included as part of the COPS and FEMA grants in FY03 and
was incorporated in the COPS and ODP grant processes in FY04.
Bottom-Up Approach:
SAFECOM recognizes that over 90% of the nation's public safety
communications infrastructure is owned by localities and states.
Therefore, as SAFECOM partners with other federal agencies, it remains
a program designed by public safety for public safety creating
interoperability solutions that are driven from the bottom-up.
An example of SAFECOM's 'bottom-up approach' is evident in its work
with local agencies within the Commonwealth of Virginia (VA). SAFECOM
partnered with VA to develop a strategic plan for statewide
communications and interoperability. In alignment with its
practitioner-driven philosophy, SAFECOM developed a methodology to
ensure local practitioner input into the VA statewide plan. This
methodology will serve as a model for other states and regions
developing statewide communications and interoperability plans.
SAFECOM is further partnering with local public safety communities on
an initiative called RapidCom9/30 to ensure that a minimum level of
public safety interoperability is in place in ten key urban areas by
September 30, 2004. The RapidCom9/30 project will provide incident
commanders in charge of managing/directing various responding agencies
the ability to adequately communicate with each other and the
respective command center within 1 hour of an incident. By working with
public safety practitioners at the local level, SAFECOM seeks to
develop effective solutions to improve public safety communications and
interoperability.
SAFECOM Response to Specific GAO Recommendations for Executive Action:
(1) Develop a nationwide database of interoperable public safety
communications frequencies and establish a common nomenclature for
those frequencies.
The SAFECOM Program is developing a nationwide database of
interoperable public safety communications frequencies in its FY04
program as part of its support to the Computer Assisted Pre-
coordination Resource and Database System, CAPRAD. CAPRAD is a secure,
web-based application that assists State and Local public safety
frequency coordinators across the nation efficiently allocate spectrum
in the 700 MHz public safety frequency band. The CAPRAD Spectrum
Management Toolset was originally developed at the request of the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC). NPSTC is a
federation of State and local associations representing public safety
telecommunications. Funding for CAPRAD has historically been provided
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) AGILE program. In addition
to 700 MHz spectrum management, CAPRAD is currently being expanded in a
number of areas as requested by the user community including:
- Management of the newly allocated 4.9 MHz public safety frequency
band Management of the Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee
(SIEC) spectrum set aside frequencies:
- Development of a user friendly, graphical nationwide database of
interoperable public safety communications frequencies:
- Initiation of a Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications
Infrastructure Database application:
Among the initial CAPRAD enhancements planned under SAFECOM are:
- Continued development of a Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications
Infrastructure Database application to include information on
additional interoperability resources and assets:
- Enhancements in response to the President's Spectrum Policy Initiative
Reports (June 04) calling for mandatory use of CAPRAD and standardized
web-based frequency coordination, see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/:
To address the need for a common nomenclature across public safety
disciplines and jurisdictions, SAFECOM plans to work with NPSTC to
leverage existing efforts addressing incident command systems. The
complete scope of the common nomenclature issue is currently being
defined.
(2) Determine the current status of wireless public safety
interoperability telecommunications across the nation by assessing
interoperability in specific locations against interoperability
requirements that can be measured, and establish a national baseline
for interoperable communications.
DHS, through the SAFECOM program, is addressing the need for a national
baseline of public safety communication and interoperability
capabilities across the nation. During the SAFECOM/AGILE Joint Program
Planning Meeting in December 2003, key public safety practitioners and
stakeholders voiced the need for a measure of the nation's current
level of interoperable communications. SAFECOM, with input from the
public safety community, is developing a methodology to establish this
baseline.
In order to develop this measurement tool, SAFECOM will define the
optimal metrics, assess previous studies into the state of
interoperability, conduct a gap analysis, and launch and support a
project team to conduct the baseline assessment. SAFECOM has developed
a Statement of Work for the baseline activities and a Request for
Quotes will be released in July 2004.
Once complete, this baseline will be the basis for measuring future
improvements made through local, state, and federal public safety
communications initiatives and will be used to define a minimum level
of interoperability.
(3) Through federal grant guidance encourage state action to establish
a single statewide body responsible for interoperable communications
and that this body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide
interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communications
systems in all frequency bands. The statewide interoperability plan
shall be based upon the nationwide standard frequency database and use
the standard nationwide nomenclature for interoperability channels,
once they are developed.
SAFECOM has created coordinated grant guidance that outlines
eligibility for grants, the purposes for which grants could be used,
and guidelines for implementing a wireless communication system. The
SAFECOM grant guidance was included as part of the COPS and FEMA grants
in FY03 and was incorporated in the COPS and ODP grant processes in
FY04. Although SAFECOM does not directly manage any grant making
programs, it has created grant guidance, with input from the public
safety community, in order to help to maximize the efficiency with
which public safety communications related grant dollars are allocated
and spent. The SAFECOM grant guidance encourages applicants to consider
systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by
other disciplines and at other levels of government. Because SAFECOM
recognizes that many federal dollars are allocated at the local level,
this grant guidance recommends that dollars spent at any level consider
coordination between local, state, and federal agencies development of
solutions to public safety interoperability and communications. As a
model of such coordination, SAFECOM has developed, in conjunction with
the Commonwealth of Virginia, a methodology for the development of a
statewide communication system that ensures input from the local level.
This methodology will be available through the SAFECOM grant guidance
for states interested in implementing a statewide system.
(4) At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved
only upon certification by the statewide body responsible for
interoperable communications that such grant applications are in
conformance with statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give
states adequate time to develop these focal points and plans and to
provide guidance on development of such plans.
SAFECOM developed coordinated grant guidance outlining eligibility for
grants, the purposes for which grants could be used, and guidelines for
implementing a wireless communication system. This guidance was
distributed to the relevant federal grant making programs and adopted
in FY03 and FY04 solicitations. Among these guidelines is the
development of a meaningful governance structure that brings together
the appropriate parties in the development of a communications
solution. SAFECOM believes that such a governance structure, which
includes representation of statewide bodies or initiatives, is critical
to the success of any communications initiative. However, it is
important to note that the notion of governance is based on a locally
driven principle that focuses on the end user needs and requirements.
To model this bottom up approach, SAFECOM has partnered with the
Commonwealth of Virginia to develop a strategic plan for statewide
communications and interoperability. In alignment with its practitioner
driven philosophy, SAFECOM developed a methodology to ensure local
practitioner input into the statewide plan which will serve as a model
for other states and regions developing statewide communications and
interoperability plans. To develop this strategic plan, SAFECOM
conducted six focus group sessions with local practitioners in diverse
regions across the commonwealth in preparation of a larger strategic
planning session held in Richmond, VA. SAFECOM believes that by working
with public safety practitioners at the local level, the Commonwealth
of Virginia will develop an effective statewide strategy for the
improvement of public safety communications and interoperability.
SAFECOM's Role in the Newly Created Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility:
DHS, in an effort to more effectively address the needs of public
safety, has established a national interoperability program office to
significantly improve interoperability and compatibility, allowing
firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel to
communicate and share equipment with each other during a major
disaster. The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS
has been tasked to lead the planning and implementation of the national
interoperability office in coordination with other DHS programs.
Modeled after the SAFECOM program, the new office will focus on
coordination of federal efforts to improve public safety
interoperability. The interoperability office will create a series of
portfolios to address critical interoperability and compatibility
issues related to the emergency response provider and homeland security
communities. The SAFECOM program will serve as the communications
portfolio and will continue to manage and coordinate communications
interoperability issues.
Additional SAFECOM Comments to the GAO Report:
On page 51, the GAO report states: "Similarly, an NTIA official told us
there are several interoperable frequencies in the 162MHz to 174MHz
band and the 406-420 MHz band for state and local public safety."
SAFECOM Comment: The actual UHF band is 406.1 to 420MHz, since 406MHz
is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed airmen/aircraft etc.
On page 39, the GAO report states that the SAFECOM grant guidance is
"designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first
responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which
grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for
applicants."
SAFECOM Comments: In addition to outlining the eligibility for grant
dollars and the purposes for which federal dollars can be used, the
SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus guidelines for implementing a
wireless communications system. This guidance is useful in directing
all agencies towards interoperability goals, even if they are not
specifically applying for federal funding.
Conclusion:
SAFECOM continues to work aggressively to improve public safety
communications and interoperability. By partnering with local, state
and federal public safety agencies, SAFECOM has taken important steps
to address the interoperability issue. These include the development of
grant guidance, the first statewide practitioner driven plan (The VA
Plan), and the first ever comprehensive Statement of Requirements (SoR)
for public safety. Ongoing efforts to create a baseline understanding
of the nation's level of interoperability, to develop consistent
methodologies for and provide technical assistance through the FICC,
and build a national architecture for public safety communications will
continue as high priority SAFECOM projects. SAFECOM, with its partners,
is assuring a safer America through effective public safety
communications.
Additional information on the SAFECOM Program can be obtained at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If
you have questions or need clarification regarding our comments, please
contact Mr. Thomas Krones, (202) 401-5861, or e-mail:
Thomas.krones@dhs. ov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Anna F. Dixon:
Director, Bankcard Programs and GAO/OIG Liaison:
NOTES:
[1] SAFECOM has adopted this definition of public safety communications
interoperability from the National Task Force on Interoperability's
report "Why Can't We Talk? Bridging the Communications Gap to Save
Lives," released in February 2003.
[2] FPIC was formerly known as the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless
Users Group (FLEWUG), and represents the federal communications user
community.
[3] The SoR was released in April 2004. The SoR is considered to be a
`living document,' that will require additional review as new user
groups are identified and as technology progresses. The current
document is version 1.0.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
William O. Jenkins (202) 512-8777 Thomas James (202) 512-2996:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Leo Barbour, Karen Burke, Katherine Davis,
Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary Malavenda, and Shirley
Perry made contributions to this report.
[End of section]
GAO Related Products:
Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and
Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing. GAO-04-798T.
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004.
Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
Requires Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.: April
16, 2004.
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
Communications for First Responders. GAO 04-231T. Washington, D.C.:
November 6, 2003.
Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs. GAO-03-
1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management
With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. GAO-03-277. Washington,
D.C.: January 31, 2003.
Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management. GAO-02-906. Washington, D.C.:
September 26, 2002.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Congressional Research Service. FY 2005 Budget Request for First
Responder Preparedness: Issues and Analysis. By Shawn Reese.
Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2004.
Congressional Research Service. DHS: First Responder Grants: A Summary.
Washington, D.C.: October 2003.
Congressional Research Service. First Responder Initiative: Policy
Issues and Options. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated August 28,
2003.
Congressional Research Service. FY2003: Appropriations for First
Responder Awareness. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated June 2,
2003.
Congressional Research Service. Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of
Selected Federal Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.:
April 2003.
Congressional Research Service. Analysis of Selected Aspects of
Terrorism Preparedness Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington,
D.C.: Updated March, 13, 2003.
Gilmore Commission. Third Annual Report to the President and the
Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities
for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington, D.C.:
2001.
National Governors Association. A Governor's Guide to Emergency
Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security. Washington, D.C.: 2002.
National Task Force on Interoperability. Why Can't We Talk? Working
Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives. Washington,
D.C.: 2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Information Material--'How To' Guide
for Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks. Fairfax,
Virginia: 2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Federal Interoperability Assistance
Support--Funding Strategy Best Practices Report. Fairfax, Virginia:
2002.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Report Card on Funding Mechanisms
for Public Safety Radio Communications. Fairfax, Virginia: 2001.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Fire and Emergency Management Services
(EMS) Communications Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia: 1999.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost
Study. Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Strategies for Public
Safety Radio Communications. As prepared by BoozŜAllen & Hamilton.
Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Mechanisms for Public
Safety Radio Communications. Prepared by Booz ŜAllen & Hamilton.
Fairfax, Virginia: 1997.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Final Report of the Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee. Fairfax, Virginia: 1996.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Public Safety Coordination and
Preparedness Guide. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Federal Government in
Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Local Public Safety
Community Government in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability.
Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the States in Public Safety
Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
U.S. Department of Justice. Wireless Communications and
Interoperability Among State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.
Washington, D.C.: 1998.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications
interoperability--communications that use radio frequency waves, such
as cellular telephones and other types of wireless radios--instead of
telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not address
interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland security
functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information
technology.
[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges
in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO 04-
231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).
[3] Congress authorized the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) within the Department of Justice to administer the
Interoperable Communications Technology Program. The program awarded 14
grants totaling more than $66 million to first responders for
interoperable communications in 2003 and provides technical assistance
to grantees.
[4] The spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the
electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allotted
for the public safety community.
[5] Fire and EMS Communications Interoperability, April, 1999. The
Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to
promote effective public safety communications and to foster
interoperability among local, state, federal, and tribal communications
systems. PSWN was incorporated into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project
in 2003.
[6] Why Can't We Talk? Working Together to Bridge the Communications
Gap to Save Lives: Feb. 2003). The Task Force was formed and funded by
the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and included
representatives from associations across the public safety community,
such as fire and police chiefs, emergency managers, mayors, cities, and
states.
[7] The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the
range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is
concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1
gigahertz, because these frequencies have properties that make this
portion of the spectrum well suited for many important wireless
technologies. Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that
propagate in space as the result of particle oscillations. The number
of oscillations per second is called "frequency," which is measured in
units of hertz. The term "kilohertz" refers to thousands of hertz and
"gigahertz" to billions of hertz.
[8] Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee:
Sept. 1996. The FCC and the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration formed the Advisory
Committee in June 1995 to provide advice on the specific wireless
communications requirements of public safety agencies through the year
2010 and to make recommendations for meeting those needs. Members were
drawn from private industry, federal agencies, and state and local
public safety agencies. The FCC regulates state and local government
use of radio frequency spectrum and the NTIA regulates federal
government use of radio frequency spectrum.
[9] A Governor's Guide to Emergency Management. Volume Two: Homeland
Security (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
[10] Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, January, 1998 by DOJ, and "Fire and EMS
Communications Interoperability, April, 1999" by PSWN. DOJ's study
concentrated on wireless interoperability issues within the state and
local law enforcement community, while PSWN's study assessed
communications interoperability issues within the fire and emergency
medical services communities.
[11] The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement
(AGILE) is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for
first responders.
[12] Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 15, 2001. The panel is
generally referred to as the Gilmore Commission, after its Chairman
James S. Gilmore, III.
[13] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 2 (6), 116
Stat. 2135, 2140.
[14] An enterprise architecture can be viewed as a link between an
organization's strategic plan and the program and supporting systems
implementation investments it intends to pursue to systematically
achieve its strategic goals and outcomes. As such the architecture is
basically a blueprint, defined largely by interrelated models, that
describes (in both business and technology terms) an entity's "as is"
or current environment, its "to be" future environment, and its
investment plan for transitioning from the current to the future
environment. See Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise
Architecture and Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing
GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).
[15] The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
Support Office operates as part of the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center-Rocky Mountain Center (NLECTC-RM).
NLECTC is a program of the National Institute of Justice, the research
and development arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. The NLECTC is
hosted by the University of Denver. The NPSTC Support Office and its
work on CAPRAD is funded by the Department of Justice AGILE program.
AGILE funding also supports the FCC designated Regional Planning
Committees.
[16] In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
local, regional and state users. A regional planning process was
adopted to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a
similar process to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands.
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to
meet state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum,
and accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology
equipment. They are responsible for creating and managing regional
plans.
[17] FCC has certified specific associations to perform the
coordination process used to choose appropriate frequencies for public
safety mobile radio systems. This coordination is essential to ensure
that the numerous systems across the country have clear and
interference free operation on these critical radio systems.
[18] Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April
2004).
[19] Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced
Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906
(Washington, D.C.: September, 2002).
[20] Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum
Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed, GAO-03-277
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[21] We did not evaluate these studies for purposes of this report.
[22] FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose
mission is to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and
efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing
duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting best
practices and coordinating federal grants, technical assistance,
training, and standards. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies
within DOJ, DHS, Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and
Commerce.
[23] See appendix III for a discussion of SAFECOM's objectives to
establish by 2005 (1) a research, development testing, and evaluation
program that identifies and develops a long-term, sustainable technical
foundation for interoperability improvements; and (2) a program to
provide technical assistance to the public safety community.
[24] Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 6, 2003).
[25] Appendix IV discusses the evolving role of states and the
challenges they face in addressing communications interoperability
problems.
[26] FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or
similar bodies, and 12 states with RPCs assuming the SIEC role.
However, PSWN data show 7 states with SIECs, 13 states with SIEC like
committees, 15 states with statewide safety communication committees
that have responsibilities broader than SIECs, and 15 states where RPCs
have assumed SIEC responsibilities.
[27] NCC, which had recommended SIECs at the state level to administer
interoperability channels, concluded that some state governments may be
using their SIECs to control all aspects of interoperability channels
use rather than the administrative purposes as intended by FCC. In
addition, NCC found that some states have expanded the role of their
SIECs to include other state-level functions, such as procurement, and
that, in the absence of FCC guidance, some states had designated SIECs
without an appropriately broad range of public safety agency members.
[28] Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated
interoperability channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid
channels) in the VHF and UHF bands.
[29] NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-
day communications needs of nonfederal public safety agencies.
[30] Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless
Network Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.
[31] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program. The new
program includes three different grant programs.
[32] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS
officials said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable
Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable
Communications Technology Program have a 1 year time period but that
no-cost extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case
basis to accommodate unavoidable delays.
[33] In response to a draft report, DHS said that, in addition to
outlining the eligibility for grant dollars and the purposes for which
federal dollars can be used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides
consensus guidelines for implementing a wireless communications system.
DHS said this guidance is useful in directing all agencies towards
interoperability goals, even if they are not specifically applying for
federal funding.
[34] The U.S.-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio
Interference is also known as the CMERAR in Spanish, the Joint
Commission, or the Mixed Commission. The Joint Commission's principal
mission is to resolve interference cases between U.S./Mexican users
along our common borders. The CMERAR typically meets twice a year, and
the Co-Chair of the U.S. Section is the Chief of FCCs Enforcement
Bureau. Working groups meet on an as-needed basis and deal with
interference cases on a local level.
[35] The Department of Homeland Security in its written response to a
draft of this report noted that the actual UHF band is 406.1 MHz to 420
MHz, since 406 MHz is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed
airmen/aircraft etc.
[36] We did not review the NRL's system performance.
[37] National Strategy for Homeland Security, White House Office of
Homeland Security.
[38] Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless
Network Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.
[39] SAFECOM has identified several investment areas that must be taken
into account in the life-cycle of a public safety communication system,
in their recent grant guidance. These include: planning for public
safety communication systems; building communication systems;
upgrading/enhancing communication systems and equipment; replacing
communication systems and equipment; maintaining communication systems
and equipment; training public safety staff on issues related to
emergency response communications; and managing public safety
communications projects.
[40] In technical comments to a draft of this report, COPS officials
said of this $154 million, Congress directed that $5 million of COPS
appropriations be earmarked for NIST and $3 million for NIJ/AGILE.
[41] In the application guidance, the Metropolitan Statistical Areas
were defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus,
together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and
social integration with that core.
[42] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS
officials said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable
Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable
Communications Technology Program have a one year time period but that
no-cost extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case
basis to accommodate unavoidable delays.
[43] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Reforming Federal Grants to
Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3,
2003).
[44] The COPS Application Guidance states that after eliminating
duplicate MSAs from the two categories, their methodology resulted in
the identification of 74 candidates that could apply for the grant. A
lead jurisdiction was designated within the MSA to promote multi-
jurisdictional, interoperable partnerships with neighboring
localities. In the application guidance a Metropolitan Statistical
Areas was defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus,
together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and
social integration with that core.
[45] Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within the DOJ, DHS,
Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce.
[46] The Domestic Security Oversight Board prepares Domestic Security
Funding Recommendations--including recommendations for funding
interoperable communications--to the governor and state and
legislature. Decisions on the used of federal and state homeland
security funds are based upon the recommendations of the oversight
board.
[47] STO officials said that the one exception to this rule is their
review of Emergency Medical Services grants, which requires a state-
level review before approval for federal or state funds.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
