Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:02:10 -0500

Before the Subcommittees of the Government Reform Committee, House of
Representatives
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST
Thursday, November 6, 2003 HOMELAND SECURITY
Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First
Responders

Highlights of GAO-04-231T, a report to Congressional Requesters,
Subcommittees of House Government Reform Committee
The inability of first responders— police officers, firemen, hazardous
materials teams, emergency medical service personnel, and others—to
communicate effectively with one another as needed during an emergency
is a long-standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across
the country. When first responders cannot communicate effectively as
needed, it can literally cost lives—of both emergency responders and
those they are trying to assist. At the request of the Chairman of the
full committee, we are examining the barriers to improved
interoperability and the roles that federal, state, and local
governments can play in improving wireless interoperability
communications.

Because our work is ongoing, we are not yet making recommendations.
However based on our work to date, we identify several major challenges
federal, state, and local governments must address. Effectively
addressing these challenges requires collaboration of all first
responders and all levels of government. Failure to do so risks spending
funds ineffectively and creating new problems in our attempt to resolve
existing ones.

Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First
Responders

Interoperability problems existed among public safety agencies for many
years prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Reports on
incidents have documented a number of problems in public safety wireless
communications. For over 15 years the Federal Government has been
concerned about public safety spectrum issues, including communications
interoperability issues. A variety of federal agencies have been
involved in defining the problem and identifying potential solutions. In
addition, Congress has taken several actions over the past two decades
to address the availability and use of public safety wireless spectrum.
The events of September 11 have resulted in greater public and
governmental focus on the role of first responders and their capacity to
respond to emergencies, including those resulting from terrorist
incidents.
The interoperability issues that the nation faces today did not arise
overnight and they will not be successfully addressed overnight.
Federal, state, and local governments face several major challenges in
addressing interoperability in their wireless communications.

The first challenge is to clearly identify and define the problem. For
example, it is important to recognize that interoperable communications
is not an end in itself, but it is rather one component for achieving an
important goal--the ability to respond effectively to and mitigate
incidents that require the coordinated actions of first responders.

The second challenge is whether and how to establish national
interoperability performance goals and standards and balance them with
the flexibility needed to address differences in state, regional and
local needs and conditions.

The third challenge is defining the roles of federal, state, and local
governments and other entities in defining the problem, implementing any
national goals and standards, and assessing alternative means of
achieving those goals and standards.
The fundamental barrier to successfully addressing these challenges has
been the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary and
intergovernmental planning. No one first responder group or governmental
agency can successfully “fix” the interoperability problems that face
our nation. It will require the partnership, leadership, and coordinated
planning of everyone involved.

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees:

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical
issue of wireless interoperable communications for first responders. The
inability of first responders—police officers, fire fighters, emergency
medical service personnel, public health officials, and others—to
communicate effectively with one another as needed during an emergency
is a long-standing and widely recognized problem in many areas across
the country. 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 interoperable 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. The effective interoperability of
these 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.

At the request of the Chairman of the full committee, we are examining
the barriers to improved interoperability and the roles that federal,
state, and local governments can play in improving wireless
interoperability communications.1 Our work is ongoing. To date, we have
contacted state and local officials in several states, attended
professional meetings, and opened discussion with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and other key federal agencies. We are
conducting our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. My testimony today focuses on the broad and complex
nature of the interoperability issue and the challenges the nation faces
in addressing this issue.

Background Interoperability problems existed among public safety
agencies for many years prior to the September 11 attacks on the
Pentagon and New York City. Reports on incidents have documented a
number of problems in public safety wireless communications. For
example, the National Task Force on Interoperability (NTFI) documented
interoperability problems in
Our work addresses public safety wireless communications
interoperability issues. Thus, we do not address interoperability
problems found in other homeland security functions, such as fire
equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information technology.
several states - including South Dakota, Indiana, and Minnesota--that
had developed over a number of years.

For over 15 years the federal government has been concerned about public
safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability
issues. A variety of federal agencies have been involved in defining the
problem and identifying potential solutions. In addition, Congress has
taken several actions over the past two decades to address the
availability and use of the public safety wireless spectrum.

The events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in greater public and
governmental focus on the role of first responders and their capacity 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 for interoperability through a variety of grants administered by
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and
other agencies.

In addition to appropriating more funds, the executive branch and
Congress have attempted to consolidate federal efforts and coordinate
federal grant programs. Within the executive branch, the Office of
Management and Budget in 2001 created the Wireless Public SAFEty
Interoperable COMmunications Program, or SAFECOM, 3 to unify the federal
government’s efforts to help coordinate the work at the federal, state,
local and tribal levels, in order to provide reliable public safety
communications and achieve national wireless communications
interoperability.

SAFECOM is one of the President’s 24 E-GOV initiatives.

The description of SAFECOM’s mission is taken from the Administrator for
E-government and IT, the Office of Management and Budget letter to the
attendees of the SAFECOM, National Institute of Standards and Technology
and National Institute of Justice Summit on Interoperable Communications
For Public Safety.

Summary

The First Challenge: Identifying and Defining the Interoperability
Problem

The interoperability issues that the nation faces today did not arise
overnight and they will not be successfully addressed overnight.
Federal, state, and local governments face several major challenges in
addressing interoperability in their wireless communications. The first
challenge is to clearly identify and define the problem, recognizing
that interoperable communications is but a means to an end–the ability
to respond effectively to any incident that requires the coordinated
actions of first responders. The second is whether and how to establish
national interoperability performance goals and standards and to balance
them with the flexibility needed to address differences in state,
regional, and local needs and conditions. The third challenge is
defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other
entities in identifying the communication problem, implementing any
national performance goals and standards, and assessing alternative
means of achieving those goals and standards. The fundamental barrier to
successfully addressing these challenges has been the lack of effective,
collaborative, interdisciplinary and intergovernmental planning. No one
first responder group or governmental agency can successfully “fix” the
interoperability problems that face our nation. It will require the
partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning of everyone involved .

In discussing the issue of interoperable communications, it is important
to recognize that interoperable communications is not merely a
technological issue or an end in itself. It is rather a key means of
achieving a desirable objective—the effective response to and mitigation
of events or incidents that require the coordinated actions of emergency
responders. These events could encompass a wide range of possibilities,
such as multi-vehicle accidents, major floods or wildfires, or a
terrorist attack that involved thousands of injuries.

Interoperable communications is also but one component, although an
important one, of an effective incident command planning and operations
structure. As a standard practice, public safety agencies are to
establish communications capabilities to support command and control of
their operations at an incident scene. Determining the most appropriate
means of achieving interoperable communications must flow from an
effective planning and operations structure that identifies who is in
charge and who must be able to communicate what information to whom
under what circumstances. For example, there are likely to be both
similarities and differences in the interoperable communications
capacities, protocols, and participants associated with responding to
seasonally predictable wildfires and terrorist attacks that involve
biological agents.

Defining the range of interoperability capacity needed requires
identifying the types of events for which interoperable communications
would be needed, the participants involved in responding to those
events—by professional discipline and jurisdiction—and an operational
definition of who is charge and who would need to communicate what types
of information (e.g., voice, data, or both) with whom under what
circumstances. These are not easy tasks, and they require both a
multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional perspective. But these tasks
are a precursor to assessing the current problems—e.g., operational,
technical, and fiscal—that exist in meeting interoperable communication
needs and alternative means of achieving identified interoperable
communications needs.

But more importantly, interoperability is not a static issue--it is an
issue that is affected by changes in technology and the changing events
and threats for which first responders must be prepared. Thus, there is
no single, long-term solution; the issue is one that must be
periodically reassessed as needs and technology change.

Interoperability Is Not a Static Issue

The Evolving Definition of First Responders

The issues and problems in defining and scoping what is meant by
“interoperability” are not static. They evolve over time in a fluid and
ever-changing environment of evolving threats and events for which we
need to be prepared to respond, new operational requirements, new
spectrum bands for public safety use, and new technology.

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 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

Reexamining the Jurisdictional Boundaries of Interoperability

Interoperable Needs Are Scenario Driven and Change Over Time

emergency management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and
emergency medical services first responders.5 Furthermore, Congress
recognized the expanded definition of first responder in the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, which defined “emergency response providers” as
“Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement,
emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency
facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.”6
The context of the communications also affects the definition of the
problem. Two key studies in the late 1990s sponsored by the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)7 program
provide a nationwide picture of wireless interoperability issues among
federal, state, and local police, fire, and emergency medical service
agencies at that time.8 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. 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.

Another issue is the broad range of scenarios in which interoperable
communications are required. Public safety officials have pointed out
that interoperability is situation specific, 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; or (3) a major event that requires response
from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies. One official
breaks the major event category into three separate types of events:

• planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be made in
advance;

• recurring events, such as major wildfires and hurricanes, that can be
expected every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared
based on past experience, and

• unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly

Technological Changes Also Affect Interoperability
overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem.

As technology changes, it presents 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 are not interoperable. This
official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more prevalent
and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become more
important.

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. The Department of Homeland
Security has recently decided to purchase radios that incorporate the
P-25 standards for the 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.

In addition, 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 result in 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 public safety uses and sought comments on various issues,
including licensing and service rules. 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 Federal Communications (FCC) in
particular requested comments on the implementation of technical
standards for fixed and mobile operations on the band. The National
Public Safety Telecommunications Council9 has established a task force
that includes work on interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band.
When the interoperability problem has been sufficiently defined and
bounded, the next challenge will be to develop national interoperability
performance goals and technical standards that balance consistency with
the need for flexibility in adapting them to state and regional needs
and circumstances.

Second Challenge: Establishing National Goals and Requirements

Lack of National Requirements

One key barrier to development of a national interoperability strategy
is 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. The report of the Independent Task
Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations on emergency
responders said national standards of preparedness have not been defined
and that the lack of a methodology to determine national requirements
for emergency preparedness constitutes a national crisis. The report
Formed May 1, 1977, the National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council is a federation representing public safety telecommunications.
The purpose of NPSTC is to follow up on the recommendations of the
Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC). In addition, NPSTC
acts as a resource and advocate for public safety telecommunications
issues.

Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations;
Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.

recommended these standards be prepared for federal, state, and local
emergency responders in such areas as training, interoperable
communications systems, and response equipment. SAFECOM officials have
noted that no standard, guidance, or national strategy exists on
interoperability. DOJ officials told us they are working with SAFECOM to
develop a statement of requirements that should be ready for release by
May 1, 2004.

Need for an Interoperability Blueprint

To guide the creation of interoperable communications, there must be an
explicit and commonly understood and agreed-to blueprint, or
architecture, for effectively and efficiently guiding 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. An enterprise architecture provides a clear
and comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it is an organization
(e.g., a federal department or agency) or a functional or mission area
that cuts across more than one organization (e.g., financial
management). In August 2003, DHS released its initial enterprise
architecture that it described as conceptual in nature.. We are in the
process of reviewing this architecture at the request of the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform.

Need For Flexibility

There is no single “silver bullet” solution to interoperability needs.
Our ongoing work indicates that communications interoperability problems
facing any given locality or state tend to be situation specific, with
no universally applicable solution. For example, the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) noted in its White Paper
on Homeland Security that various methods are possible to achieve
interoperability but planning is an essential first step to choosing a
solution. APCO noted that interoperability does not involve a single
product or system approach; rather it is accomplished with a variety of
solutions with a focus on the first responder. APCO noted that what is
an appropriate interoperability solution varies with the operation of
the particular government agencies, their funding, their physical
location, and other individual circumstances.

In addition, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee’s (PSWAC)
final report noted that the public safety community has some common
operational requirements, such as dispatch communications and
transmission of operational and tactical instructions. However, the
PSWAC report also describes agencies’ specialized requirements that are
based on specific missions and operating environments. For example, the
report notes forestry and state police have long distance requirements
where foliage can be a problem for higher frequency systems. In
contrast, a metropolitan police department may need highly reliable
in-building coverage, which is not a requirement for state police mobile
operations. Those state and local officials we have interviewed to date
have stated that they want to retain flexibility when addressing
communications issues. For example, Virginia state officials noted that
geographical locations within the state present different
interoperability requirements. They said interoperability problems
differ from locality to locality, and that solutions must be developed
that fit the specific circumstances of the individual geography and
situation.

As noted above, the federal government has a long history in addressing
federal, state, and local government public safety issues–in particular
interoperability issues. The Government Reform Committee has also
recently contributed to the development of policies. In October 2002 the
Committee issued a report entitled “How Can the Federal Government
Better Assist State and Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological,
Chemical, or Nuclear Attack “(Report 107-766). 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.

The federal role in addressing the interoperability of public safety
wireless communications continues to evolve. Today, a combination of
many federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in
coordinating emergency communications. 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.

The SAFECOM program was initially established within Justice in 2001 and
was transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
2002 before being brought into DHS in early 2003. The current director
said his program is responsible for outreach to local, state, and
federal public safety agencies to assist in interoperability planning
and implementation. In an August 2003 briefing, SAFECOM stated its role
is to serve “as the umbrella program within the federal government to
coordinate the efforts of local, tribal, state and federal public safety
agencies working to improve public safety response through more
effective, efficient, interoperable wireless communications.” In the
briefing, SAFECOM officials said they have begun to implement this
coordination role by setting objectives to develop a national public
safety communications strategy, providing supporting standards and
guidance; developing funding mechanisms and guidance, and creating a
national training and technical assistance program.

SAFECOM officials have also stated that SAFECOM has taken several other
actions to implement its role as the umbrella program to coordinate
actions of the federal government. For example, in coordination with
officials of other agencies, it developed guidance for federal grants
supporting public safety communications and interoperability. The
guidance is designed to provide an outline of who is eligible for the
grants, purposes for which grant funds can be used and eligibility
specifications for applicants. The guidance requires that, at a minimum,
applicants must” 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.

Although 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 major role in
interoperability after the establishment of DHS. Key Justice
programs–the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement
(AGILE) and the Community Oriented Policing Services–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, fire fighters, and emergency technicians. The SAFECOM
program director also said most of the federal research and development
on prototypes is being conducted within the AGILE program. The
Department of Justice said it is also creating a database for all
federal grants to provide a single source of information for states and
localities to access, and to allow federal agencies to coordinate
federal funding awards to state and local agencies. SAFECOM and AGILE
officials told us they have an informal, but close working relationship
today, and that they are negotiating a memorandum of understanding
between the two programs. Federal officials also told us that efforts
are also under way by SAFECOM, AGILE, and other federal agencies to
coordinate work on technical assistance to state and local governments
and to develop and set interoperability standards. The SAFECOM program
may continue to face challenges in assuming a leadership role for the
federal government while these significant Justice programs remain
outside its domain.

SAFECOM officials will face complex issues 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 National Telecomunications and
Information Agency (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, which regulates federal
government spectrum use, and the Federal Communications Commission,
which regulates state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. In a
September 2002 report on spectrum management and coordination, GAO found
that FCC’s and NTIA’s efforts to manage their respective areas of
responsibility were not guided by a national spectrum strategy. The FCC
TELECOMMUNICATIONS; Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906, September, 2002

State Role in Interoperability Issues Is Evolving

and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum planning efforts and
have recently taken steps to improve coordination, but they 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. In
a January 2003 report, we discussed several barriers to reforming
spectrum management in the United States.

The role that state and local governments will play in public safety
communications is evolving. This role is being defined by states and
local governments as they address problems they recognize exist in their
communications systems and by the FCC and the NTIA. As noted by the
National Governors Association (NGA), many states are establishing a
foundation for cooperation and statewide planning through memorandums of
understanding or similar agreements.

Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions to
address communications planning and interoperability planning. For
example, the Missouri State Interoperability Executive Committee was
created by the Missouri Department of Public Safety to enhance
communications interoperability among public safety entities in Missouri
by promoting available tools and relationships. The Missouri State
Interoperability Executive Committee established a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that instructs public safety agencies within the
state to use the FCC designated interoperability channels under an
Incident Command/Incident Management structure. The MOU also attempts to
diminish operational interoperability barriers by creating common
operating procedures for the agencies to use on the channels.
Furthermore, in order to create a comprehensive approach to
interoperability that addresses new homeland security concerns, the
State of Missouri enacted the “Missouri Uniform Communications Act for
Homeland Security”, which established the State’s “Public Safety
Communications Committee.” This Committee is composed of representatives
from the Department of Public Safety, Office of Homeland Security,
Department of Conservation and Department of Transportation. The
committee reviews all public safety agencies’ plans that request state
or federal wireless communications funds and relies on the
recommendations of the Missouri Interoperability Executive Committee to
ensure that state decisions enhance interoperability.

Another state that uses the State Interoperability Executive Committee
structure to enhance communications interoperability is the State of
Washington, whose committee was established by state legislation
effective July 1, 2003. The Washington Committee was created under the
Information Services Board within the Department of Information
Services. The Committee’s members include representatives from the
Military, Transportation, Information Services and Natural Resources
departments; the Washington State Patrol; state and local fire chiefs;
police chiefs; sheriffs; and state and local emergency managers.
Washington legislation requires the Committee to submit to the State
legislature an inventory of all public safety systems within the state
and a plan to ensure the interoperability of those systems. The
Committee was given the authority to develop policies and procedures for
emergency communications systems across the state and to serve as the
point of contact for the FCC in the allocation, use and licensing of
radio spectrum for public safety and emergency communication systems.
Federal actions to support state efforts that address wireless
interoperability issues are still evolving. On the one hand, the Public
Safety Wireless Network program has supported state efforts to improve
multistate and individual statewide planning and coordination through a
number of projects that emphasize a regional approach. However, two
agencies of the federal government–the FCC and the NTIA–set rules and
regulations for state and local governments and federal government
wireless systems respectively.

The Regional or Shared Approach

State and local efforts to address interoperability issues are
widespread. The National Governors Association said in its recent Guide
to Emergency Management that interoperable equipment, procedures, and
standards for emergency responders are key to improving the
effectiveness of mutual aid agreements with other states and other
jurisdictions. The NGA guide calls for governors and their state
homeland security directors to:

• develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications;

• ensure adequate wireless spectrum is available to accommodate all
users;

• invest in new communications infrastructure;

• develop standards for technology and equipment, and partner with
government and private industry.
Specifically, states are taking action to facilitate strategic planning
and interoperability planning that emphasize a shared approach at the
multistate, state, and local levels. The Public Safety Wireless Network
report 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
multi-jurisdictional interoperability. We talked to officials from
several states about their states’ efforts to address interoperability
issues on a regional basis. For example;

• State officials from Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan
have combined efforts to form a Mid-west Consortium to promote
interstate interoperability. They 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
governors of the states have agreed to sign an MOU to signify that each
state is willing to be interoperable with the other states and will
provide communication assistance and resources to the other states, to
the extent that it does not harm their own state.

• In Florida, the governor of the state 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 Executive Interoperable
Technologies Committee. 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.

Statewide Interoperability Public safety representatives have stressed
the importance of planning in
Plans addressing communications interoperability issues. The Association
of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) has emphasized the
importance of planning in addressing communications interoperability
problems. In its Homeland Security white paper, APCO said that a plan
for responding to terrorist events should include a section on how to
address interoperability requirements. The creation of state
interoperability plans could help reduce the current fragmented public
safety communications planning process. Public safety agencies have
historically planned and acquired communications systems for their own
jurisdictions without concern for interoperability. This meant that each
local and state agency developed communications systems to meet their
own requirements, without regard to interoperability requirements to
talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For example, a PSWN anlaysis 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. Each agency developed a sense of
“ownership”, leading to “turf issues” and resistance to change.

The SAFECOM program has reached similar conclusions. According to
SAFECOM, the priorities of local and state public safety communications
systems are first, to provide reliable agency specific communications;
second, to provide local interagency communications; and third, to
provide reliable interagency local/state/federal communications. In a
August 11, 2003, briefing document, SAFECOM noted that limited and
fragmented planning and cooperation was one barrier to public safety
wireless communications. SAFECOM noted a complex environment of over 2.5
million public safety first responders within more than 44,000 agencies
and the fragmented command structure–where each Chief of Police sees
himself as the Chairman of the Joint Staff in his jurisdiction– but the
Fire Chief disagrees. The briefing also noted that a multitude of
federal programs provide funding for interoperable communications with
no coordination of requirements or guidance and that local funding was
also stove-piped to meet individual agency needs. In a recent statement,
we identified 10 separate grant programs that could be used for first
responder equipment, including a number of these that can be used for
interoperable communications equipment. We stated that the fragmented
delivery of federal assistance can complicate coordination and
integration of services and planning at state and local levels.

Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding
Needs, GAO-03-1146T, September 3, 2003

The Fundamental Barrier to Success: The Absence of Effective Coordinated
Planning and Collaboration
The barriers to successfully addressing the three challenges we have
outlined are multifaceted. Among the organizations we have contacted or
whose reports we have reviewed, we found a variety of identified
barriers, with a number of common barriers. For example, the SAFECOM
project and a task force of 18 national associations representing state
and local elected and appointed officials and public safety officials15
identified similar barriers: (1) incompatible and aging communications
equipment, (2) limited and fragmented funding, (3) limited and
fragmented planning and cooperation, (4) limited and fragmented radio
spectrum, and (5) limited equipment standards.

Of all these barriers, perhaps the most fundamental has been limited and
fragmented planning and cooperation. The regional chairs of the Florida
State Interoperability Committee 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.
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, leadership, and collaboration of all 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 and creating new
problems in our attempt to resolve existing ones. 2003.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairmen, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittees may have.

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. However, 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.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/