Homeland Security
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications Gao ID: GAO-04-963T 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, 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.
GAO-04-963T, 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-04-963T
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. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and International Relations:
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, July 20, 2004:
Homeland Security:
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to
Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications:
Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues:
GAO-04-963T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-963T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can
be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed.
This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable
wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that
federal state, 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 of 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-04-963T.
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]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical
issue of wireless interoperable communications for first
responders.[Footnote 1] In testimony last November before this
subcommittee, we pointed out that 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 2] 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.
In this statement and in the report we are releasing today,[Footnote 3]
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.
In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials,
obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation, attended several
meetings of public safety communications officials, and met with staff
of the National Governors Association. We conducted our work from July
2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Summary:
* The fundamental barrier to effectively addressing wireless
interoperability problems for public safety has been the lack of
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
cooperation and planning.
Defining the Problem: Assessing Current Capabilities:
* Interoperable communications needs are a function of effective
incident command planning and operations structure that defines, for
different circumstances and types of events, who is in charge and what
types of information--voice, data, or both--would need to be
communicated to whom under what circumstances.
* The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders nationwide has not been determined. To assess these
capabilities a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess
"what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management and
Budget has designated SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland
Security, as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to
improve interoperable communications. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a
document designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is
working to develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005.
This is a difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline study
are still being worked out.
Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Is Needed:
* The federal, state, and local governments all have important roles in
assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in meeting those
needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps.
* The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet these
goals. For example, the federal government can provide the leadership
and support for developing (1) a national architecture that identifies
communications requirements and technical standards, (2) a national
database of interoperable communications frequencies, (3) a common
nomenclature for those frequencies, and (4) statewide interoperable
communications plans.
* SAFECOM's ability to provide federal leadership and coordination is
hampered by its dependence upon other federal agencies for funding and
cooperation. SAFECOM is to negotiate an annual memorandum of
understanding on funding or program participation with each federal
agency that OMB has designated as a partner with SAFECOM.
* DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility, which it expects to be fully established by November
2004. As of June 2004, the exact structure and funding for the office,
including SAFECOM's role within the office, were still being developed.
* With broad input from local governments and first responders, states
can serve as focal points for statewide planning to improve
interoperable communications. The Federal Communications Commission
has recognized the important role of states by providing them authority
to administer the interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of
communications spectrum.
* Some states are working to develop statewide plans. However, states
are not required to establish a statewide capability to (1) integrate
statewide and regional interoperability planning or (2) prepare
statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum to meet
the range of interoperability needs within the state. Nor is there is
any guidance for states on what such plans should include.
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning:
* The fragmented federal grant structure for first responders does not
support statewide interoperability planning. SAFECOM has developed
grant guidance for interoperability, but cannot require that consistent
guidance be incorporated in all federal first responder grants.
* The structure of some federal grants does not support long-term
planning efforts because, for example, they did not require a
communications plan prior to receiving grant funds and required a 1-or
2-year performance period.
* The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review
process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used
for communication projects that complement each other and add to
overall statewide and national interoperability capacity.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of DHS:
* in coordination with the FCC and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, set target dates for completing the
development of a nationwide interoperable frequency database and common
nomenclature for those frequencies;
* establish national interoperable communications requirements and
assist states in assessing current capacities against those
requirements;
* use DHS grant guidance to encourage states to establish a single
statewide body to assess and develop statewide plans for improving
interoperable communications; and:
* at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that all
state or local grant applications for equipment purchases conform with
statewide interoperable communications plans.
We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to
SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with
adequate coordination authority and funding.
DHS generally agreed with the first two recommendations, but did not
directly address the third and fourth recommendations. OMB had no
comments on our draft report or recommendations.
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 available broadcast
spectrum. Consequently, both a short-and long-term "feedback loop" that
incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and needed
changes is important.
Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely
diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications
systems. According to SAFECOM officials,[Footnote 4] 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 5] In addition to the difficulty
that this complex environment poses for federal, state, and local
coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many
emergency management technicians, are volunteers with elected
leadership. Many of these agencies are small and do not have technical
expertise; only the largest of the agencies have engineers and
technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific
communication systems development approach prevailed--resulting in
none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public
safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications
systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for
interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed
communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard
to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with
public safety spectrum issues, including communications
interoperability issues.[Footnote 6] 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.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies
have been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available
frequencies become congested and as new technology made other
frequencies available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now
operate over multiple frequency bands--operating on these different
bands required different radios because technology was not available to
include all bands in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional
capabilities but fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum,
making communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another
technical factor inhibiting interoperability is the different
technologies or different applications of the same technology by
manufacturers of public safety radio equipment. One manufacturer may
design equipment with proprietary technology that will not work with
equipment produced by another manufacturer.
Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communication Problems Nationwide Are
Unknown:
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
nation--including the current interoperable communications
capabilities of first responders and the scope and severity of the
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Although various
reports have documented the lack of interoperability of public safety
first responders wireless communications in specific locations,
complete and current data do not exist documenting the scope and
severity of the problem at the local, state, interstate, or federal
levels across the nation. Accumulating this data may be difficult,
however, because several problems inhibit efforts to identify and
define current interoperable communications capabilities and future
requirements.
First, current capabilities must be measured against a set of
requirements for interoperable communications, and these requirements
vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific
locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what
set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to
satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable
communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force
operations that occur when members of different agencies come together
to work on a common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper
investigation, or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements
for interoperable communications also may change with the expanding
definition of first responders--from the traditional police, fire, and
emergency medical providers to include such professions as health care
providers and other professions--and the evolution of new technology.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless
communications interoperability will be difficult because the
definition of 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 7] program planning
meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline
is necessary to know what the nation's 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. SAFECOM has embarked on an effort to
establish a national baseline of interoperable communications
capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details
of the study that would be used to develop the baseline. At the time of
our review, SAFECOM officials acknowledged that establishing a baseline
will be difficult and said they are working out the details of their
baseline study but still expect to complete it by July 2005.
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.
Second, technical standards for interoperable communications are still
under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry
and the public safety user community developed what is known as Project
25 (P-25) standards. According to the Public Safety Wireless Network
(PSWN)[Footnote 8] program office, Project 25 standards remain the only
user-defined set of standards in the United States for public safety
communications. DHS purchased radios that incorporate the P-25
standards for each of the nation's 28 urban search and rescue teams.
PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward achieving
interoperability, but the standards do not mandate interoperability
among all manufacturers' systems. Standards development continues today
as new technologies emerge that meet changing user needs and new policy
requirements.
Third, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are
potential sources of new interoperability problems. Availability of new
spectrum can also encourage the development of new technologies and
require further development of technical standards. For example, the
FCC recently designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz)
band, for use and support of public safety. The FCC provided this
additional spectrum to public safety users to support new broadband
applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local
area networks for incident scene management. 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 Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Is Needed:
The federal government, states, and local governments have important
roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying gaps in
meeting those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing
those gaps. The federal government can provide the leadership, long-
term commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet
these goals. For example, currently national requirements for
interoperable communications are incomplete and no national
architecture exists, there is no standard database to coordinate
frequencies, and no common nomenclature or terminology exists for
interoperability channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements
or a national architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database,
or develop a common nationwide nomenclature. Moreover, the federal
government alone can allocate communications spectrum for public safety
use.
Need to Establish 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.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation
of interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or enterprise architecture, is required to
effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade,
GAO has promoted the use of enterprise 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 9] 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 and Common Nomenclature Not Yet Established:
Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a
standard database of interoperable communications frequencies to be
essential to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability
frequencies and for general public safety purposes. Police and fire
departments often have different concepts and doctrines on how to
operate an incident command post and use interoperable communications.
Similarly, first responders, such as police and fire departments, may
use different terminology to describe the same thing. Differences in
terminology and operating procedures can lead to communications
problems even where the participating public safety agencies share
common communications equipment and spectrum. State and local officials
have drawn specific attention to problems caused by the lack of common
terminology in naming the same interoperability frequency.
The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC), appointed by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to make recommendations
for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications spectrum. The NCC
recommended that the FCC mandate (1) Regional Planning
Committee[Footnote 10] use of a standard database to coordinate
frequencies during license applications and (2) specific names be
designated for each interoperability channel on all pubic safety bands.
The NCC said that both were essential to achieve interoperability
because public safety officials needed to know what interoperability
channels were available and what they were called. In January 2001, the
FCC rejected both recommendations. It said that the first
recommendation was premature because the database had not been fully
developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit the issue of
mandating the database once the database was developed and had begun
operation. The FCC rejected the common nomenclature recommendation
because it said that it would have to change the rules each time the
public safety community wished to revise a channel label. In its final
report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed both recommendations. It noted
that the FCC had received a demonstration of a newly developed and
purportedly operational database, the Computer Assisted Pre-
Coordination Resource and Database System (CAPRAD), and that its
recommendations were consistent with previous FCC actions, such as the
FCC's designating medical communications channels for the specifc
purpose of uniform useage.
Converting SAFECOM's Functions To A Long-Term Program:
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.[Footnote
11] In addition, the roles and responsibilities of various federal
agencies within and outside DHS involved in communications
interoperability have not been fully defined, and SAFECOM's authority
to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited in
part because it has been dependent upon other federal agencies for
cooperation and funding and has operated without signed memorandums of
understanding negotiated with various agencies.
DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had
created an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the
Science and Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response
to the problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and
compatibility. The new office is responsible for coordinating DHS
efforts to address interoperability and compatibility of first
responder equipment, to include both communications equipment and
equipment such as personal protective equipment used by police and fire
from multiple jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary of
DHS states that by November 2004 the new office will be fully
established and that action plans and a strategy will be prepared for
each portfolio (type or class of equipment). The plan presents a budget
estimate for creation of the office through November 2004 but does not
include costs to implement each portfolio's strategy. The plans for the
new office do not clarify the roles of various federal agencies or
specify what oversight authority the new office will have over federal
agency communications programs. As of June 2004, the exact structure
and funding for the office, including SAFECOM's role within the office,
were still being developed.
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles And Responsibilities For
Interoperability:
DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program
and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it
does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in
relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies
that have missions that may be related to the OMB-assigned mission for
SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies,
including ODP within DHS, AGILE and the Office for Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS)[Footnote 12] in DOJ, the Department of
Defense, the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration within the Department of Commerce, and other agencies.
For example, AGILE is the DOJ program to assist state and local law
enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently communicate with
one another across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. The Homeland
Security Act assigns the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)
primary responsibility within the executive branch for preparing the
United States for acts of terrorism, including coordinating or, as
appropriate, consolidating communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security at all levels of
government. An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted
authority to ODP to serve as the primary agency for preparedness
against acts of terrorism, to specifically include communications
issues. He said ODP is working with states and local jurisdictions to
institutionalize a strategic planning process that assesses and funds
their requirements. ODP also plans to develop tools to link these
assessments to detailed interoperable communications plans.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address
public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the
Department of Commerce is responsible for federal government spectrum
use and the FCC is responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal
spectrum use. The National Governors' Guide to Emergency Management
noted that extensive coordination will be required between the FCC and
the NTIA to provide adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local,
state, and federal communications. In September 2002, GAO reported that
FCC and NTIA's efforts to manage their respective areas of
responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy and had
not implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct
joint, national spectrum planning.[Footnote 13] The FCC and the NTIA
generally agreed with our recommendation that they develop a strategy
for establishing a clearly defined national spectrum plan and submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees. In a separate
report, we also discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum
management in the United States.[Footnote 14] On June 24, 2004, the
Department of Commerce released two reports entitled Spectrum Policy
for the 21st Century, the second of which contained recommendations for
assessing and managing public safety spectrum.
SAFECOM's Authority To Coordinate Federal And State Efforts Is Limited:
SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess
and improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has
developed guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM
does not have authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their
grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with
DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate
federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to
jurisdictions and allow states access to this information for planning
purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication of funding
and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize
efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data collection
tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state and locals.
However, SAFECOM officials said that the challenge to implementing the
coordinated project is getting federal agency collaboration and
compliance. As of February 2004, the database contained award
information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA interoperability communications
equipment grants, but no others within or outside DHS.
SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon
its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in
the process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency
Coordination Council[Footnote 15] and establishment of a process for
federal agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal
activities and investments in interoperability; (2) developing
standards; and (3) developing a national architecture for addressing
communications interoperability problems. They said identification of
all current and planned federal agency communications programs
affecting federal, state, and local wireless interoperability is
difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing a strategy
to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to enforce
the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials said they
are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination process by
developing written agreements with other federal agencies and by
obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to the
SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this newly
refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical assistance
or conducting operational testing of equipment. They said that their
authority to conduct such activities 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.
State and Local Governments Can Play a Central Role:
States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal
points for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications.
The FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and
procedures, the FCC concluded that because states play a central role
in managing emergency communications and are usually in control at
large scale-events and disasters, states should administer the
interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of communications
spectrum. States can play a key role in improving interoperable
communications by establishing a management structure that includes
local participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability
gaps between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive
local, state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding
these plans. The states we visited or contacted--California, Florida,
Georgia, Missouri, Washington and a five state Midwest consortium--were
in various stages of formulating these management structures. 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.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies
and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8
notes that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of
federal preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local
officials also believe that states, with broad local and regional
participation, have a key role to play in coordinating interoperable
communications supporting these missions. The Public Safety Wireless
Network (PSWN), in its report on the role of the state in providing
interoperable communications, agreed. According to the PSWN report,
state leadership in public safety communications is key to outreach
efforts that emphasize development of common approaches to regional and
statewide interoperability. The report said that state officials have a
vested interest in establishing and protecting statewide wireless
infrastructures because public safety communications often must cross
more than one local jurisdictional boundary.[Footnote 16]
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.
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. Available data indicate that 12 to 15 states
did not create SIECs[Footnote 17] but have relied on Regional Planning
Committees or similar planning bodies.
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 18] 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.
Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in
Statewide Plans:
FCC designated frequency coordinators[Footnote 19] 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 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; 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.
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 20] FCC,
however, designated different frequencies for interoperability in the
VHF band and in the UHF band from spectrum it controls for use by state
and local public safety agencies.
Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning:
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 21] 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. Furthermore, given the high costs, the
development of an interoperable communications plan is vital to useful,
non-duplicative spending. However, the federal funding assistance
programs to state and local governments do not fully support regional
planning for communications interoperability. Federal grants that
support interoperability have 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.
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 Homeland Security
Grant (HSG) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants require
states or selected jurisdictions to conduct a needs assessment and
submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP.[Footnote 22] However, the
required strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They do not
require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be
submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by COPS and FEMA
for the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require
that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds.
However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were
actively engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional"
body should conduct planning.
Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:
State and local officials also said that the short grant application
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review
of local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited
submission timeframes presents barriers to first responders for
developing plans prior to receiving funds. For example, several federal
grant programs--the Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA
communication equipment grants, 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/ FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and
National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance
periods.[Footnote 23] 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 24] 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.
The House Committee on Appropriations report for the DHS FY 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 decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program
information to them for use in their database.
Conclusions:
A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable
communications problems for public safety has been the lack of
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
planning. Jurisdictional boundaries and unique public safety agency
missions have often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and
collaboration. No one first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of
government can "fix" the nation's interoperability problems, which vary
across the nation and often cross first responder agency and
jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in spectrum available to federal,
state and local public safety agencies--primarily a federal
responsibility conducted through the FCC and NTIA--changes in
technology, and the evolving missions and responsibilities of public
safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight the ever-changing
environment in which interoperable communications needs and solutions
must be addressed. Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multi-
jurisdictional partnership and collaboration are essential for
effectively addressing interoperability shortcomings.
Recommendations:
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:
* in coordination with the FCC and National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, continue to develop a nationwide database
of public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide
nomenclature for these channels, with clear target dates for completing
both efforts;
* establish requirements for interoperable communications and assist
states in assessing interoperability in their states against those
requirements;
* through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single,
statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive
statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local
communications systems in all frequency bands; and:
* at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved
only upon certification by the statewide body responsible for
interoperable communications that grant applications for equipment
purchases conform with statewide interoperability plans.
We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to
SAFECOM and establish those functions as a long-term program with
adequate authority and funding.
In commenting on 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. OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report.
This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee my have at this time.
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] U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges in
Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO
04-231T (Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003).
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2004).
[4] The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program
(SAFECOM) was established in 2001 by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to focus on communications interoperability issues.
[5] Spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the
electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allocated
to the public safety community.
[6] 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.
[7] The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement
(AGILE) is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for
first responders.
[8] 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.
[9] 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 U.S. General Accounting Office, Information
Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies Enterprise
Architectures Are Still Maturing, GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May
19, 2004).
[10] In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
local, regional, and state users. A regional planning process was
adopted to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a
process similar to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands.
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to
meet state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum,
and accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology
equipment. They are responsible for creating and managing regional
plans.
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency
Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration,
GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004).
[12] Congress authorized COPS within DOJ to administer the
Interoperable Communications Technology Program in 2003. The program
awarded 14 grants totaling more than $66 million to first responders
for interoperable communications and provides technical assistance to
grantees.
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better
Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum
Management, GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.: Sept., 2002).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Comprehensive
Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement
Is Needed, GAO-03-277 (Washington,D.C.: Jan., 2003).
[15] 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.
[16] See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless
Interoperability, PSWN (2002).
[17] FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or
similar bodies and 12 states with Regional Planning Committees (RPC)
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.
[18] Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated
interoperability channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid
channels) in the VHF and UHF bands.
[19] 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.
[20] NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-
day communications needs of non-federal public safety agencies.
[21] Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, PSWN (June 1998).
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
[24] DHS officials said that, in addition to outlining the eligibility
for grant dollars and the purposes for which federal dollars can be
used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus guidelines for
implementing a wireless communications system. DHS said this guidance
is useful in directing all agencies towards interoperability goals,
even if they are not specifically applying for federal funding.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
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. General Accounting 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. General Accounting Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
