This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-301 
entitled 'First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 
Interoperability' which was released on April 2, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

April 2007: 

First Responders: 

Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability: 

GAO-07-301: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-301, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

As the first to respond to natural disasters, domestic terrorism, and 
other emergencies, public safety agencies rely on timely communications 
across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions. It is vital to the 
safety and effectiveness of first responders that their electronic 
communications systems enable them to communicate with whomever they 
need to, when they need to, and when they are authorized to do so. GAO 
was asked to determine, among other things, (1) the extent to which 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance 
has helped to improve interoperable communications in selected states 
and (2) the progress that has been made in the development and 
implementation of interoperable communications standards. To address 
these objectives, GAO reviewed grant information, documentation of 
selected states’ and localities’ interoperability projects, and 
standards documents. 

What GAO Found: 

According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states 
and localities from 2003 through 2005 for communications 
interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with technical 
assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of specific 
interoperability projects. However, states that GAO reviewed (see table 
below) had generally not used strategic plans to guide investments 
toward broadly improving interoperability. Further, no national plan 
was in place to coordinate investments across states. To its credit, 
DHS has required states to implement a statewide plan by the end of 
2007, and DHS has recently been required to implement a National 
Emergency Communications Plan. However, no process has been established 
for ensuring that states’ grant requests are consistent with their 
statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to improving 
interoperable communications—such as including in its decision making 
an assessment of how grant requests align with statewide communications 
plans—progress by states and localities in improving interoperability 
is likely to be impeded. 

Until recently, the private-sector coordinating body responsible for 
developing Project 25 standards—a suite of national standards intended 
to enable interoperability among the communications products of 
different vendors—has made little progress. Although one of the eight 
major subsets of standards was defined in the project’s first 4 years 
(from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 through 2005, no additional standards 
were completed that could be used to develop Project 25 products. 
Specifications for three additional subsets of standards were defined 
over the past 2 years. However, ambiguities in the published standards 
have led to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, 
and no compliance testing has been conducted to determine if these 
products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged 
state and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 
radios, which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 
radios. As a result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer, 
more expensive radios that still may not be interoperable and thus may 
provide few added benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to 
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states 
and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive equipment 
that provides them with minimal additional benefits. 

Table: DHS Grant Funding to Improve Interoperability in Selected 
States: 

State: New York; 
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $145.5 million. 

State: Kentucky; 
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $50 million. 

State: Oregon; 
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $53.4 million. 

State: Florida; 
Grants from 2003 through 2005: $55.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making recommendations to DHS, which include assessing how 
states’ grant requests support statewide communications plans and 
modifying its guidance on acquiring interoperable equipment. DHS 
disagreed with the latter recommendation, but GAO believes that it is 
important to provide more flexibility until completed subsets of 
standards have been fully defined. DHS agreed or deferred comment on 
all others. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-301]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202)512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a 
More Strategic Approach Is Needed: 

SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of 
Government to Achieve Interoperability: 

Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards, 
but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within Selected 
States: 

Florida: 

Kentucky: 

New York: 

Oregon: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools: 

Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical 
Assistance: 

Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable 
Communications: 

Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces: 

Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases: 

Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment 
Program: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System: 

Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location 
on the Radio Spectrum: 

Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location: 

Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces: 

Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network: 

Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution: 

Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network: 

Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview: 

Abbreviations: 

COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services: 
DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 
GHz: gigahertz: 
ICTAP: Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program: 
IP: Internet Protocol: 
IWN: Integrated Wireless Network: 
kHz: kilohertz: 
MHz: megahertz: 
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 
OEC: Office of Emergency Communications: 
TIA: Telecommunications Industry Association: 
TICP: Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan: 
UASI: Urban Area Security Initiative: 
UHF: ultra high frequency: 
VHF: very high frequency: 
VoIP: Voice over Internet Protocol: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 2, 2007: 

The Honorable William Lacy Clay: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Emergency "first responders"--personnel such as firefighters, police 
officers, and ambulance services who are the first to arrive at the 
scene of an emergency--are supported by a variety of public safety 
agencies, including 911 call center staff and other local, state, and 
federal authorities. Timely communications, often via wireless radios, 
are vital to the effectiveness and safety of first responders and their 
supporting agencies, as well as the safety of the public at large. 
Communications interoperability--also referred to as compatibility or 
connectivity--refers to the capability of different electronic 
communications systems to readily connect with each other and thus 
enable timely communications. 

Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public 
safety officials for many years. Toward that end, two major Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts under way to improve interoperable 
public safety communications are: (1) grant funding and technical 
assistance provided by the Office of Grants and Training to high-risk 
regions at the state and local level for on-site support as they work 
to improve their interoperability and (2) the SAFECOM program, intended 
to strengthen interoperable public safety communications at all levels 
of government. The program is intended to provide research, 
development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on 
communications-related issues. In addition, DHS supports Project 25, a 
joint initiative by government and commercial organizations to develop 
a set of national standards for vendors to use when designing radio 
communications equipment for first responders. 

You asked us to assess the extent to which DHS has made progress in 
improving interoperable communications for first responders. 
Specifically, our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which 
DHS funding and technical assistance have helped to improve 
interoperable communications in selected states, (2) the progress the 
SAFECOM program has made in improving interoperable communications, and 
(3) the progress that has been made in the development and 
implementation of interoperable communications standards. 

To address our objectives, we conducted case studies of four states 
(Florida, Kentucky, New York, and Oregon) and 11 selected localities 
within those states. We used a number of factors to select states, 
including those that had received relatively large amounts of DHS 
funding, as well as those that routinely face natural disasters. The 
localities we selected included (1) large, high-risk urban areas, 
referred to as Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions, which 
received the most funding from DHS within our selected states, (2) the 
non-UASI counties that received the largest amount of DHS funding 
within these states, and (3) the counties and cities where the state 
capitals are located.[Footnote 1] To assess each state's use of DHS 
grants and technical assistance to improve interoperability and to 
identify common issues among states, we analyzed documentation obtained 
from state and local officials, such as grant allocation information 
and communications interoperability plans. To determine the progress 
SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable communications, we analyzed 
program management documentation (such as program goals, initiatives, 
and performance measures) and interviewed state and local officials 
regarding their use of SAFECOM tools and guidance. To determine the 
status of the development and implementation of interoperable 
communications standards, we obtained and analyzed documentation from 
DHS, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the 
four states. We performed our work from April 2006 to February 2007 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided 
in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states 
and localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for 
communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with 
technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of 
specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed, 
strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and 
provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a 
broader level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide 
their investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national 
plan was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while 
UASI officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had 
been helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value 
in measuring progress. Further, although DHS has required states to 
implement statewide plans by the end of 2007, no process has been 
established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent 
with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach 
to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its 
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with 
statewide communications plans--and until more rigorous exercises are 
conducted, progress by states and localities in improving 
interoperability is likely to be impeded. 

The SAFECOM program has made limited progress in improving 
communications interoperability at all levels of government; however, 
the program has not addressed interoperability with federal agencies, a 
critical element to interoperable communications required by the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.[Footnote 2] 
The SAFECOM program has focused on helping states and localities 
improve interoperable communications by developing tools and guidance 
for their use. However, based on our review of four states and selected 
localities, SAFECOM's progress in achieving its goals of helping these 
states and localities improve interoperable communications has been 
limited. Officials from the states and localities we reviewed often 
found that the tools and planning assistance provided by the program 
were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the program 
had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to poor 
program management practices, including the lack of a plan for 
improving interoperability across all levels of government and 
inadequate performance measures that would provide feedback to better 
attune tools and assistance with public safety needs. Until SAFECOM 
adopts these key management practices, its progress is likely to remain 
limited. 

Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25 
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable 
interoperability among the communications products of different 
vendors. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was 
defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 
through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used 
by a vendor to develop elements of a Project 25 system. To its credit, 
over the past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body responsible 
for Project 25 has defined specifications for three additional subsets 
of standards. However, ambiguities in the published standards have led 
to incompatibilities among products made by different vendors, and no 
compliance testing has been conducted to ensure vendors' products are 
interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state and 
local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 radios, 
which are substantially more expensive than non-Project 25 radios. As a 
result, states and local agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive 
radios, which still may not be interoperable and thus may provide them 
with minimal additional benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance 
to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, 
states and localities are likely to continue to purchase expensive 
equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits. 

We are making recommendations to DHS to enhance the effectiveness of 
the department's efforts to improve interoperable communications, 
including assessing how states' grant requests support their statewide 
communications plans as a factor in the grant allocation process, 
implementing a program plan and establishing performance measures to 
assess the effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools, and modifying 
guidance to states and localities regarding acquisition of 
communications equipment to allow a more flexible approach until 
completed subsets of standards have been fully defined, and products 
have been certified compliant. 

We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and 
the director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the 
Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in 
appendixes III and IV. Commerce provided updated information and 
technical comments, which we have incorporated, where appropriate. 

In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two, 
stated that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one 
recommendation. 

DHS agreed with the intent of our recommendation that it develop and 
implement a program plan and stated that it is currently working to 
develop such a plan. DHS also agreed with our recommendation to develop 
quantifiable performance measures for the program. 

DHS disagreed with our recommendation on modifying grant guidance to 
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until 
standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined, stating 
that the recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend its 
interoperability grant guidance until after the entire Project 25 suite 
of standards is complete, and would undermine the final remaining 
negotiations between the public safety community and equipment 
manufacturers. We agree that not all interfaces need to be fully 
defined before agencies can begin acquiring Project 25 products; thus 
we have clarified the recommendation to reflect this. However, we are 
not recommending that the public safety community be prohibited from 
acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus we do not believe negotiations 
with equipment manufacturers would be undermined. 

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

Background: 

Public safety agencies include the nation's first responders (such as 
firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center 
staff, and a number of local, state, federal, and regional authorities. 
Communications, often through wireless land mobile radios, are vital to 
these agencies' effectiveness and to the safety of their members and 
the public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in 
order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work 
within specified frequency ranges. 

Interoperability in the context of public safety communications systems 
refers to the ability of first responders to communicate with whomever 
they need to (including personnel from a variety of agencies and 
jurisdictions), when they need to, and when they are authorized to do 
so. It is important to note that the goal of being able to communicate 
when necessary and authorized is not the same as being able to 
communicate with any other individual at any time--a capability that 
could overwhelm the communications infrastructure and would likely 
impede effective communication and response time. 

Different first responder groups each have different professional 
practices, public safety missions, emergency response procedures, 
communication protocols, and radio frequencies. These differences have 
created a variety of obstacles to effective interoperable 
communications among first responders. Thus, facilitating interoperable 
communications has been a policy concern of public safety officials for 
many years. 

Land Mobile Radio System Technology: 

Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communications among 
public safety personnel. These systems typically consist of handheld 
portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and repeaters. Handheld 
portable radios are typically carried by public safety personnel and 
tend to have a limited transmission range. Mobile radios are often 
located in vehicles and use the vehicle's power supply and a larger 
antenna, providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable 
radios. Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as 
public service access points or dispatch centers, and tend to have the 
most powerful transmitters. A network is required to connect the 
different base stations to the same communications system. Repeaters 
are used to increase the effective communications range of handheld 
portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios by 
retransmitting received radio signals. Figure 1 below illustrates the 
basic components of a land mobile radio system. 

Figure 1: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO and DHS. 

[End of figure] 

The transmissions between the elements of a land mobile radio system 
consist of electromagnetic waves that propagate along designated 
frequencies of the radio spectrum. Each communications link uniquely 
occupies a specific frequency or set of frequencies for as long as 
information is being transmitted. The radio spectrum is a fixed, 
limited resource that is shared among government and nongovernment 
entities for many uses in addition to public safety communications, 
such as television broadcasting, AM/FM radio, and aeronautical radio 
navigation. Most public safety agencies use their allocated frequencies 
for voice communications but are increasingly using their portion of 
the spectrum to support more advanced technologies, such as data, 
imagery, and video transmissions. The specific frequency bands 
allocated to public safety agencies are shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location 
on the Radio Spectrum: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO and DHS. 

[End of figure] 

Major frequency ranges that are used for public safety communications 
include the very high frequency (VHF) range and the ultra high 
frequency (UHF) range. VHF signals travel farther than UHF signals and 
thus are useful in suburban and rural areas. However, they generally 
cannot penetrate building walls very well. In contrast, UHF signals are 
more appropriate for denser urban areas as they penetrate buildings 
more easily, and it is less critical that the signals be able to 
propagate for long distances. The frequencies used by federal agencies 
are managed by the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, while the Federal Communications Commission manages 
state and local government frequencies. 

Radio systems are classified as either conventional or "trunked." 
Conventional radio systems have dedicated frequencies--also referred to 
as channels--assigned to individual groups of users. When a user makes 
a call, other members of the group cannot use the channel until the 
call is over. In contrast, trunked systems allocate pools of channels 
for use by multiple individuals. When a call is made by a user on a 
trunked system, an available channel is automatically selected from the 
pool of channels, leaving the remaining channels available for others. 
While trunked systems are more complex and require more infrastructure 
than conventional systems, they allow for more efficient use of 
communication channels, reducing congestion. 

Lack of Interoperable Communications Has Long Hindered Emergency 
Response: 

In order to effectively respond to emergencies such as natural 
disasters and domestic terrorism, public safety agencies need the 
ability to communicate with their counterparts in other disciplines and 
jurisdictions. However, the wireless communications systems used by 
many police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and 
other public safety agencies do not provide such capability. For 
example, emergency agencies responding to events such as the bombing of 
the federal building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of September 11, 
2001, experienced difficulties in trying to communicate with each 
other. The 9/11 Commission concluded that communications 
interoperability problems contributed to the large number of 
firefighter fatalities that occurred at the World Trade 
Center.[Footnote 3] 

Historically, first responder communications interoperability has been 
significantly hampered by different and incompatible radio systems. 
Different technologies and configurations, including proprietary 
designs, by different manufacturers have limited the interoperability 
of public safety wireless communications systems. These systems have 
also operated on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In 
particular, public safety agencies have been assigned frequencies in 
new bands over time as available frequencies became congested, and as 
new technologies made higher frequencies available for use. Existing 
radios are unable to transmit and receive in all of the public safety 
frequencies, often making communications between first responders from 
different jurisdictions difficult. Additionally, as we have previously 
reported,[Footnote 4] there is a need for better frequency planning and 
coordination. Further, public safety agencies have historically planned 
and acquired communications systems without concern for 
interoperability, often resulting in multiple, technically incompatible 
systems in operation throughout any given local jurisdiction. 

A variety of technical approaches have been adopted to help improve 
interoperable communications, including the following: 

* Swapping radios: Agencies maintain a cache of extra radios that they 
can distribute during an emergency to other first responders whose 
radios are not interoperable with their own. The advantage of this 
solution is that it does not require that all existing radios be 
replaced, an important consideration when funds to buy new equipment 
are limited. However, this approach requires significant logistical 
support and careful management to implement successfully. 

* Patching: Two or more incompatible radio systems are connected to a 
central switchboard-like system that translates a signal sent from one 
connected system so that it can be received by any of the other 
connected systems. The principal advantage of this solution is that 
agencies can continue to use existing systems that would otherwise be 
incompatible. A major disadvantage is that patching requires twice as 
much spectrum because a patched transmission occupies separate channels 
on each connected system. 

* Shared channels or mutual aid channels: Agencies agree to set aside a 
specific channel or channels for connecting to other incompatible 
systems. This approach provides direct interoperable communications and 
only occupies one channel per conversation. However, it can cause 
congestion since these channels require dedicated frequencies and thus 
have limited capacity. 

* Shared systems: The use of a single or common radio system--typically 
a trunked system--to provide service to most agencies within a region. 
Shared systems are the most robust form of interoperability and do not 
require dedicated channels. While this approach produces optimal 
performance, it can be very expensive, because it generally requires 
purchasing all new radios and transmission equipment. 

Technologies that can help implement shared systems include the 
following: 

* Internet Protocol based systems: Using the Voice over Internet 
Protocol,[Footnote 5] advanced communications systems can offer the 
flexibility to transmit voice conversations over a data network such as 
the Internet or a private network. 

* Software-defined radios: These are intended to allow interoperability 
among agencies using different frequency bands, different operational 
modes (digital or analog), proprietary systems from different 
manufacturers, or different modulations (such as AM or FM). However, 
software-defined radios are still being developed and are not yet 
available for use by public safety agencies. 

However, interoperability cannot be achieved solely by implementing 
technical solutions. Coordination among different agencies and 
governmental entities is also critical. Response to an emergency may 
involve all levels of government and many different disciplines, such 
as law enforcement organizations, fire departments, emergency medical 
services, transportation, natural resources, and public utility 
sectors. Each of these agencies is likely to have its own policies, 
procedures, and communications protocols when responding to an 
incident. A simplistic example is the word "fire," which to a 
firefighter means that something is burning but to a police officer is 
a command to shoot a weapon. Resolving such cultural and procedural 
differences can be challenging. 

Further, the extent to which interoperable communications are needed 
among different agencies, disciplines, and levels of government 
(federal, state, local, and tribal) varies based on the size, 
significance, and duration of an emergency event. Increasing degrees of 
interoperability may be needed for (1) routine day-to-day coordination 
between a few agencies in a local area, (2) extended operations 
involving agencies from multiple jurisdictions working on a larger 
problem (such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., 
metropolitan area), and (3) a major, large-scale event that requires 
response from a range of local, state, and federal agencies and 
disciplines (such as major wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001). 

In 2004,[Footnote 6] we reported that a fundamental barrier to 
successfully addressing interoperable communications problems for 
public safety was the lack of effective, collaborative, 
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. We recommended that 
DHS take a number of actions to address this barrier, such as 
determining the current status of interoperable communications across 
the nation and encouraging states to establish comprehensive statewide 
interoperability plans and certify the alignment of their grant 
applications with their statewide plans. DHS has taken steps to address 
these recommendations. For example, it recently completed a national 
survey of first responders to determine the current status of their 
interoperability capabilities, and it has required states to develop 
statewide communications plans by the end of 2007. 

Programs Aimed at Improving Interoperable Communications: 

SAFECOM is a DHS program intended to strengthen interoperable public 
safety communications at all levels of government. The program provides 
research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and 
templates on communications-related issues. We previously 
reported[Footnote 7] that changes in leadership delayed progress during 
the initial years of the SAFECOM program and that the program suffered 
from a lack of leadership and focus. 

Since 2004, SAFECOM has spent $20.4 million developing several tools 
and providing assistance to help guide states and localities as they 
work to improve the interoperability of their communication systems. 
Table 1 outlines several tools and guidance that SAFECOM had developed 
as of July 2006. The program continues to develop additional tools. 

Table 1: Description of SAFECOM Guidance and Tools: 

Guidance or tool: Statement of Requirements; 
Description: This document is intended to define and identify the range 
of future requirements for voice and data communications to enable 
interoperability. It provides definitions of a variety of interoperable 
communication subjects, such as public safety communication needs, 
public safety roles and functions, and the levels of operability and 
interoperability for each major public safety discipline. 

Guidance or tool: Public Safety Architecture Framework; 
Description: This framework is intended to provide a methodology to 
plan and develop the migration from current public safety architectures 
to the interoperable systems outlined in the Statement of Requirements. 

Guidance or tool: Interoperability Continuum; 
Description: The Interoperability Continuum provides a graphical 
depiction of five critical success factors for achieving 
interoperability that SAFECOM developed based on feedback from first 
responders. This tool is intended to provide a framework that emergency 
response agencies can use to baseline their planning and implementation 
of interoperability solutions. 

Guidance or tool: RapidCom; 
Description: RapidCom provided assistance to 10 high-threat urban 
areas, including New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, to help improve 
incident-level communications interoperability capabilities in those 
locations. RapidCom was intended to help incident commanders 
communicate with each other and their command centers in a timely 
manner by helping them to establish objectives, identify solutions, and 
take steps toward implementation. 

Guidance or tool: Regional Communications Interoperability Pilot 
projects; 
Description: SAFECOM officials worked with public safety officials at 
all levels of government in Nevada and Kentucky to help them develop 
both short-term and long-term goals aimed at improving interoperability 
within their states. 

Guidance or tool: Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning 
Methodology; 
Description: The methodology describes a step-by-step process for 
developing a locally driven statewide strategic plan for enhancing 
communications interoperability. 

Guidance or tool: Grant Guidance; 
Description: SAFECOM's grant guidance is intended to provide consistent 
criteria for agencies to use when purchasing equipment with federal 
funds. 

Source: GAO based on DHS data. 

[End of table] 

We previously recommended that in order to enhance the ability of 
SAFECOM to improve communications among emergency personnel from 
federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, SAFECOM officials should 
complete written agreements with the project's identified stakeholders 
(including federal agencies and organizations representing state and 
local governments) that define the responsibilities and resource 
commitments that each of those organizations will assume and include 
specific provisions that measure program performance.[Footnote 8] Since 
we made our recommendation, SAFECOM program officials have established 
a governance charter for the program, which outlines the roles, 
relationships, and operating guidelines for participating stakeholders. 

The Office of Grants and Training, which is scheduled to become part of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a separate entity within 
DHS that is responsible for, among other things, providing grants and 
technical assistance to states and localities to help them improve 
their interoperable communications. Grants and Training provides 
funding to states and requires that at least 80 percent of grant 
funding provided to states through the Homeland Security Grant Program 
be passed to localities. Grants and Training also provides additional 
funding to address the unique planning, equipment, training, and 
exercise needs of UASI areas.[Footnote 9] 

DHS uses a partly risk-based approach to allocate grant funds. State 
agencies submit proposals to DHS which form the basis for its risk-
based decisions. During the most recent grant allocation process in 
2006 for the Homeland Security Grant Program, each state and territory 
received a portion of its grant funding through a base allocation. The 
remainder of funds was allocated based on an analysis of risk and need. 
In fiscal year 2006, the UASI funds were allocated based on risk and 
effectiveness. DHS estimated the relative risk of successful terrorist 
attacks on selected urban areas, considering threat, vulnerability, and 
consequences for both asset-based and geographic factors. On the basis 
of this analysis, it ranked the UASI areas and identified 35 urban 
areas as eligible to apply for UASI funding. In addition, the 11 urban 
areas that received funding previously, but were not identified as UASI 
areas in 2006, have been extended eligibility for funding for one 
additional year. DHS also used a peer review process to assess the 
effectiveness of each of the 35 urban areas' proposed investments using 
the grant funds. 

Grants and Training has also established a monitoring program in which 
preparedness officers validate that grant funds are being administered 
legally and in accordance with the guidance provided to grantees. 
Preparedness officers work with the states to help address areas of 
concern, needs, and priorities. The monitoring program is also intended 
to provide a general assessment of where states and localities are in 
protecting their citizens. In addition, in efforts to control the use 
of awards, DHS officials have developed an Approved Equipment List that 
provides information on allowable equipment expenditures. 

Further, Grants and Training established the Interoperable 
Communications Technical Assistance Program, which has provided 
guidance and technical assistance to the UASI areas. While the program 
focuses mostly on providing guidance and assistance to these specific 
areas, assistance is also provided to non-UASI areas. Table 2 provides 
a list of the assistance and guidance offered by Grants and Training. 

Table 2: Office of Grants and Training Guidance and Technical 
Assistance: 

Guidance or technical assistance: Tactical Interoperable Communications 
Plan (TICP) guidance; 
Description: Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must develop a plan to 
achieve tactical interoperable communications across its separate 
jurisdictions. The TICP guidance provides an outline of key elements 
that should be covered in the plan, such as a governance structure and 
interoperability equipment in the region. 

Guidance or technical assistance: TICP exercise guidance; 
Description: Each UASI area receiving DHS funds must validate the 
effectiveness of their communication plan by conducting a full-scale 
exercise. ICTAP provided supporting material, such as an evaluator 
handbook. 

Guidance or technical assistance: Interoperable Communications 
Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP); 
Description: An ICTAP technical assistance team works on-site with the 
UASI areas' communications representatives to identify gaps in existing 
communications infrastructure and to translate operational requirements 
into technical requirements that can be used to design an interoperable 
system. 

Guidance or technical assistance: UASI scorecard; 
Description: Grants and Training, in consultation with SAFECOM and the 
Wireless Management Office, has developed scorecards that assess the 
maturity of tactical interoperable communications capabilities in the 
UASI areas. The goal of the scorecard effort is to provide an 
assessment of each urban/ metropolitan area and to provide 
recommendations on how to best improve tactical interoperable 
communications. DHS released the scorecards to the UASI areas in 
January 2007. 

Source: GAO based on DHS data. 

[End of table] 

Another grant program focused on interoperable communications is the 
Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
Interoperable Communications Grant program. The program awards 
technology grants to law enforcement agencies for interoperable 
communications and information sharing. While the program used to have 
a larger role in providing grant funding to states and localities, its 
scope and budget was significantly reduced in 2006 in an effort to 
eliminate overlap with DHS's grant program. 

More recently, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act[Footnote 10] transferred 
many SAFECOM program responsibilities to a new Office of Emergency 
Communications (OEC). This new office, which is not yet operational, is 
to take over the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance 
Program from Grants and Training and the Integrated Wireless Network 
project, which is intended to create a consolidated federal wireless 
communications service for federal public safety agencies. This new 
office is tasked with improving overall emergency communications for 
first responders, as well as improving interoperability. In addition to 
the OEC, the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the 
Science and Technology Directorate will continue to house the remaining 
elements of SAFECOM related to research, development, testing and 
evaluation, and standards. 

Project 25 Was Established to Address First Responder Interoperability 
Standards: 

In 1989, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the 
National Association of State Telecommunications Directors, and 
selected federal agencies established Project 25 to develop open 
standards for vendors to use when designing land mobile radio 
communications equipment. Project 25 has the following four primary 
objectives: 

* enable effective inter-and intra-agency communications, 

* improve radio spectrum efficiency, 

* focus equipment and capabilities on public safety needs, and: 

* leverage an open architecture to promote competition across land 
mobile radio vendors. 

Project 25 standards are intended to be a suite of national standards, 
based upon public safety user requirements, which define operable and 
interoperable communications equipment for first responders. When 
complete, this suite of standards is intended to allow for 
specifications to be written for interfaces between the various 
components of a land mobile radio system. The Association of Public 
Safety Communications Officials, the National Association of State 
Telecommunications Directors, and federal agency representatives, work 
with the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)--an American 
National Standards Institute-accredited[Footnote 11] standards 
development organization--to develop and maintain the standards. 

DHS Assistance Has Helped on Specific Interoperability Projects, but a 
More Strategic Approach Is Needed: 

According to DHS, $2.15 billion in grant funding was awarded to states 
and localities from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 for 
communications interoperability enhancements. This funding, along with 
technical assistance, has helped to make improvements on a variety of 
specific interoperability projects. However, in the states we reviewed, 
strategic planning has generally not been used to guide investments and 
provide assistance to improve communications interoperability on a 
broader level. Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide 
their investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national 
plan was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while 
UASI officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had 
been helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value 
in measuring progress. Further, although DHS has required states to 
implement statewide plans by the end of 2007, no process has been 
established for ensuring that states' grant requests are consistent 
with their statewide plans. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach 
to improving interoperable communications--such as including in its 
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with 
statewide communications plans--and until more rigorous exercises are 
conducted, progress by states and localities in improving 
interoperability is likely to be impeded. 

DHS Funding Has Helped Make Improvements on Specific Interoperability 
Projects in Selected States: 

One of the main purposes of the DHS grants program is to provide 
financial assistance to states and localities to help them fund 
projects to develop and implement interoperable communications systems. 
In addition, as previously mentioned, the Interoperable Communications 
Technical Assistance Program is intended to provide on-site assistance 
to UASI areas to, among other things, assist with developing tactical 
interoperability plans, planning exercises, assessing communication 
gaps, and designing interoperable systems. 

The four states we reviewed received assistance from DHS, which helped 
make improvements on specific interoperability projects. 

* Florida: Florida has spent $36.5 million in DHS funds to develop a 
system called the Florida Interoperability Network, which establishes 
network connections between federal, state, and local dispatch centers 
across Florida and provides mutual aid channels throughout the state. 
As a result, the level of interoperability across the state has 
improved significantly. First responders in 64 of Florida's 67 counties 
are now able to have their communications patched to each other as 
needed via the network. Previously, they had no such infrastructure for 
achieving interoperability. However, officials from localities in 
Florida raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the 
network. Each connected jurisdiction must pay the ongoing costs of 
their connection to the Florida Interoperability Network, and smaller 
jurisdictions are likely to find this unaffordable. Further, Florida 
officials remarked that training across the state is still incomplete. 
Additionally, in the Miami UASI region, a majority of the Urban Area 
Security Initiative funding for interoperable communications has been 
used to acquire communications equipment, such as radios, and 
interoperability solutions, such as devices that interconnect first 
responders on disparate radios, to make improvements in Miami City and 
in Miami-Dade County. However, limited UASI funding had been dedicated 
to making interoperability improvements in other localities in the 
Miami UASI, such as Monroe and Broward Counties. 

* Kentucky: Kentucky used a portion of its DHS funding to expand the 
use of mutual aid interoperability radio channels that allow agencies 
on different communication systems throughout Kentucky to tune to a 
dedicated, shared frequency to communicate. Prior to this initiative, 
first responders operating on different frequencies were unable to 
communicate. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies 
have signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the mutual 
aid channels in accordance to standardized procedures. However, mutual 
aid channels have limited capacity, and Kentucky has yet to implement a 
long-term solution for a statewide voice communications system that 
will allow federal, state, and local first responders to communicate 
directly as needed. Kentucky has also used DHS funding to implement a 
statewide wireless data communications system. The system provides 
functionality such as statewide records management, real-time crime 
coverage and data collection, and instant messaging. First responders 
use mobile data terminals to communicate with each other and, in many 
cases, retrieve information from agency databases. Kentucky's mobile 
data network currently has coverage across approximately 95 percent of 
the state's primary and secondary road systems. Such capabilities were 
not available to Kentucky's first responders prior to this initiative. 
In the Louisville UASI, local officials have utilized DHS funding to 
implement patching mechanisms to connect different communication 
systems throughout the region. However, according to officials, 
communications channels are frequently congested because of the amount 
of patching that needs to be done to connect responders. 

* New York: In New York, DHS funding is generally being utilized by 
localities to address local interoperability issues within their 
counties and with neighboring counties. For example, Albany County is 
acquiring a new interoperable system that connects first responders on 
many disparate systems within Albany County and neighboring counties. 
Prior to this system, there was no single voice system or network that 
would allow incident commanders and first responders to be able to 
communicate directly. However, the local solutions do not always 
incorporate state and federal systems. For example, the state is using 
state funds to develop and implement a separate and incompatible 
statewide network called the Statewide Wireless Network, which 
localities are not required to join. Albany County, for example, has no 
immediate plans to connect their new system to the statewide system 
because of uncertainties about the expense and the expected benefits 
for the county. In the New York City UASI, local officials have used a 
portion of DHS funding to implement a citywide mobile wireless network. 
This system is intended to provide first responders throughout the city 
with high-speed data access to support large file transfers, including 
accessing federal and state anticrime and antiterrorism databases, 
fingerprints, mug shots, city maps, and full-motion streaming video. 

* Oregon: Oregon, in accordance with DHS guidance, has dedicated most 
of its DHS funding to local projects that improve interoperability in 
specific regions. For example, Jackson and Josephine Counties are 
jointly implementing an interoperable communications system. 
Previously, first responders in these two neighboring counties relied 
on indirect means for establishing interoperable communications, such 
as radio channels, patching mechanisms, and a mobile command vehicle 
equipped with a cache of radios in different frequencies and a patching 
device that could be deployed as needed. However, this new system does 
not include federal or state first responders. In addition, limited DHS 
funding has been utilized for developing plans for the development of 
the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network. This system is intended 
to replace state agencies' deteriorating systems with a new system. It 
is also intended to connect local agencies that continue to use their 
existing systems to other local agencies that they do not already have 
interoperability with. To date, the development of this system has not 
been initiated. In the Portland UASI, DHS funding was used to install 
repeaters in Columbia County to enhance interoperability with the other 
four counties in the urban area. However, while it has improved the 
interoperability, not all Columbia County first responders are able to 
utilize this solution. Therefore, the UASI funding was also used to 
purchase a supply of reserve radios--referred to as a cache--that can 
be shared. 

Table 3 shows the amount of DHS funding states and localities have 
received and examples of what the money has been used for. 

Table 3: Examples of Uses of DHS Funding for Interoperable 
Communications: 

Location: State of New York; 
Examples of purchases: A communication vehicle with equipment to enable 
interoperable communications at the scene of an incident such as extra 
radios and patching devices; 
Studies of initial interoperability projects for Onondaga County; 
Emergency Services Interoperability Radio System project, which 
provides interoperability among the county and surrounding counties, as 
well as radios and a patching system for Albany County; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $74.9 million[C]. 

Location: New York City UASI; 
Examples of purchases: Portions of the citywide-Mobile Wireless 
Network, communications enhancements for the New York City Fire 
Department Operations Center, and local area network installation for 
the police department; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $70.6 million[D]. 

Location: Kentucky; 
Examples of purchases: Installation of infrastructure across the state 
to facilitate the use of interoperability radio channels; 
Computer-aided dispatch consolidation efforts and upgrades to dispatch 
infrastructure for Montgomery County; 
Development of a mobile data system for Franklin County; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $39.5 million. 

Location: Louisville UASI; 
Examples of purchases: Mobile radios, training costs, accessories for 
radio equipment, and equipment used for patching communications; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $10.5 million[E F]. 

Location: Oregon; 
Examples of purchases: Development of plans for the Oregon Wireless 
Interoperability Network, radios, mobile data terminals, and devices 
that interconnect first responders on disparate systems; 
Hospital communication upgrades, base station equipment, and radios; 
Development of a system that connects Jackson County to Josephine 
County; 
Developing a communications plan for Marion County; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $45.9 million. 

Location: Portland UASI; 
Examples of purchases: Radios, communication equipment for emergency 
operations center, mobile data terminals, and repeaters; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $7.5 million. 

Location: Florida; 
Examples of purchases: The Florida Interoperability Network, which 
establishes network connections between federal, state, and local 
dispatch centers across Florida and provides mutual aid channels 
throughout the state; 
Emergency Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, which are 
mobile systems that can be deployed to a specific response area to 
patch multiple disparate communications systems together; 
Mutual Aid Radio Communications units, which are stand-alone mobile 
interoperable communications networks and self-contain the 
infrastructure to set up a communications system in the absence of an 
operable system; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $44 million[G]. 

Location: Miami UASI; 
Examples of purchases: Radios, back-up radio system, cache of radios, a 
mobile emergency operations center, and devices that interconnect first 
responders on disparate radio systems; 
Total DHS grants[A] for interoperable communications from fiscal years 
2003 to 2005b: $11.7 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS, state, and locality data. 

Note: These amounts include DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through 
fiscal year 2005, as the complete 2006 figures were not available at 
the time of our review. 

[A] Allocations of DHS grant funding to interoperable communications 
are determined by each state and reported by each state to DHS. 

[B] DHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications 
includes funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the 
Office of Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security 
Program and the UASI program. 

[C] The $74.9 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded 
to New York, including the Buffalo UASI, with the exception of the 
$70.6 million that was awarded to the New York City UASI. 

[D] For fiscal year 2003, New York did not designate separate 
Interoperable Communications funding for the state and urban area. 

[E] From 2003 through 2005, Louisville was a designated UASI area. In 
2006 DHS reduced the number of UASI areas; as a result, Louisville is 
no longer a designated UASI area. However, it received funding from the 
UASI program in 2006 to help it sustain ongoing projects. 

[F] For fiscal year 2003, Kentucky did not designate separate 
Interoperable Communications funding for the state and urban area. 

[G] The $44 million includes all other DHS funding that was awarded to 
Florida, including the Tampa and Jacksonville UASI areas, with the 
exception of the $11.7 million that was awarded to the Miami UASI. 

[End of table] 

A Lack of Statewide Plans Has Contributed to Limited Strategic Use of 
DHS Funding: 

According to SAFECOM guidance, interoperability cannot be solved by any 
one entity alone and, therefore, an effective and interoperable 
communications system requires a clear and compelling statewide 
strategy focused on increasing public safety effectiveness and 
coordination across all related organizations. A statewide 
interoperability plan is essential for outlining such a strategy. Such 
a plan should establish long-term objectives but also include short- 
term solutions that help incrementally achieve sustainable solutions to 
the long-term objectives. Thus, establishing long-term plans helps 
ensure that near-term solutions are consistent with the end goal. 

The narrow and specific use of DHS funding in the states we reviewed 
can be traced in part to the lack of statewide plans; interoperability 
investments by individual localities have not been coordinated toward 
achieving a broader goal for the state. For example, Kentucky, which 
has received grant funding totaling approximately $50 million since 
fiscal year 2003 according to DHS, has not yet developed a statewide 
communications plan, although in January 2007, officials stated that 
they had begun developing a plan. While Kentucky has recently begun 
working to assess how best to address statewide needs, to date, grant 
reviewers at the state level who are in charge of disbursing DHS grant 
money to localities have had limited means for determining whether 
funding requests for equipment and training were compatible with 
statewide interoperability goals. For example, evaluators were required 
to assess aspects of request proposals such as whether they fully 
addressed the measurable objectives expected for a new wireless 
communication system and whether they addressed how the applicant 
agency would communicate with other public safety and/or public service 
organizations at the local, state, and federal levels. However, the 
available criteria do not provide the evaluators with an overall 
statewide strategy that the evaluators could use to assess whether the 
localities' proposal is aligned to it. As a result, the equipment and 
activities that localities have purchased have tended to address short- 
term voice communication solutions for local interoperability problems 
while long-term, statewide solutions have not been addressed. However, 
as previously stated, Kentucky has developed a data communications 
network to supplement gaps in its voice communications. 

Similarly, New York does not yet have a statewide communications plan 
and, therefore, does not utilize DHS grant funding in support of such a 
plan. While state officials recommend that localities invest in 
interoperable communications, they provide no additional guidance to 
localities to ensure that local investments are consistent with 
statewide goals. As a result, localities have generally used the 
funding to address local interoperability issues within their counties 
and neighboring counties, with little regard for state and federal 
systems. For example, while New York is currently in the process of 
deploying the Statewide Wireless Network for $2 billion, localities are 
not required to participate, and local interest in the statewide system 
has been limited. As a result, localities are continuing to develop 
their own interoperability solutions that do not incorporate the 
network. Among localities we reviewed, Onondaga County is implementing 
its own $33 million interoperable communications system independently 
of the network, and Albany County, likewise, is currently developing a 
$1.7 million interoperability system that does not incorporate the 
Statewide Wireless Network. Officials stated that once the network's 
pilot period is complete they will decide whether to participate in the 
network. 

In accordance with a previous recommendation, DHS has required grant 
recipients to develop and adopt a statewide communications plan by the 
end of 2007. Additionally, the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act states that 
DHS may restrict funding to a state if it does not submit a statewide 
interoperable communication plan.[Footnote 12] However, despite our 
other previous recommendation that DHS should require that states 
certify that grant applications be consistent with statewide 
plans,[Footnote 13] no process has yet been established for ensuring 
that states' grant requests are consistent with their statewide plans 
and long-term objectives for improving interoperability. Grants and 
Training officials are considering instituting such a process but they 
do not have specific plans to do so. 

Because of the lack of coordination, state and local governments are 
investing significant resources, including DHS grant funds, in 
developing independent interoperability solutions that do not always 
support each others' needs. Until the DHS-mandated statewide 
communications plans are in place, and processes have been established 
for ensuring that each state's grant request is consistent with its 
statewide plan and longer-term interoperability goals, progress by 
states and localities in improving interoperability is likely to be 
impeded. 

The Lack of a National Plan Has Also Contributed to Limited Strategic 
Use of DHS Funding: 

In addition to statewide plans, an overarching national plan is 
critical to coordinating interoperability spending, especially where 
federal first responders are involved. According to the Public Safety 
Wireless Advisory Committee,[Footnote 14] improving interoperable 
communications across the nation will require a national plan that 
includes all levels of government and defines operational policies and 
procedures and the proper use of national communications resources. In 
responding to large-scale events--such as wildfires, hurricanes, or 
terrorist attacks--state and local government first responders require 
interoperable communications with federal agencies. 

To date, however, interoperability investments have tended to be 
isolated and piecemeal, in part because they have not been guided by a 
comprehensive national plan. For example, officials stated that Oregon 
and its bordering states--Washington, California, and Idaho--are each 
working independently to try to implement and meet federal 
communication requirements and improve interoperability. 

In a large-scale emergency, where first responders may need to 
coordinate with agencies from other states and a variety of federal 
agencies, the lack of national-level planning can result in substantial 
interoperability problems. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, 
Florida first responders spent half a day trying to contact their 
counterparts in Louisiana and Mississippi in an effort to share 
communications equipment. If these states coordinated prior to the 
catastrophe, it is likely that less time and energy would have been 
wasted. 

The lack of a national strategy has also left state officials uncertain 
about whether they are taking appropriate steps to plan for 
interoperability. For example, Oregon officials indicated they are 
uncertain whether the approach they are taking is the best way to solve 
their interoperability problems. 

The 2007 DHS Appropriations Act[Footnote 15] requires DHS to develop a 
National Emergency Communications Plan by March 2008. Among other 
things, the plan is to identify necessary emergency communications 
capabilities for first responders and government officials, identify 
obstacles to interoperable communications, provide both short-term and 
long-term solutions to those obstacles, and establish goals and time 
frames for the deployment of emergency communications systems based on 
new and existing equipment across the United States. 

Technical Assistance Has Been Helpful, but Exercises Curtailed by DHS 
Have Had Limited Strategic Value: 

According to state and local officials, the Interoperable 
Communications Technical Assistance Program has been beneficial to each 
of the four UASI areas we visited. For example, according to Miami 
officials, the program provided extensive support in the development of 
the tactical interoperable communications plan for the Miami area. 
Technical assistance representatives held meetings with each of the 
Miami area public safety agencies to compile a regional communications 
equipment inventory. Similarly, according to Louisville officials, the 
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program held a 2-day 
workshop on developing the tactical interoperable communications plan 
for the Louisville area. Officials stated that this workshop 
represented the first time that all relevant communications officials 
and emergency responders were involved in a collaborative effort. 

Guidance for the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program required each of 
the high-risk UASI areas to plan and conduct a full-scale exercise to 
validate the effectiveness of their tactical interoperable 
communications plans. Full-scale exercises are the most complex type of 
exercises, involving multiple agencies and jurisdictions in testing 
plans, policies, and procedures. They are intended to be conducted in a 
real-time, stressful environment that closely mirrors real events. DHS 
required the exercises as a way to measure the progress each UASI has 
made in improving interoperability and developed "scorecards" to 
capture the results of the exercise. 

However, while DHS provided extensive assistance to the urban areas in 
developing their tactical interoperability communications plans, it 
curtailed the exercises that were intended to validate the robustness 
and completeness of each plan. Due to the complexity of these 
exercises, the UASI areas were originally allotted 12 months to plan 
and execute robust, full-scale exercises; DHS subsequently reduced this 
to 5 months. DHS officials indicated that they accelerated the deadline 
so that they could use the results as inputs into the interoperability 
scorecards that they published in January 2007. To compensate for the 
reduced time frame, DHS reduced the requirements of the full-scale 
exercise, advising the UASI areas to limit the scope and size of their 
activities. 

In reducing the scope of their exercises, the UASI areas had to reduce 
the extent to which they tested the robustness and effectiveness of 
their interoperability plans. For example, of the four UASI areas we 
visited, Portland, Miami, and New York City each reduced the scope of 
their exercise so they could meet DHS's accelerated deadline. For 
example, Portland had to significantly reduce the number of 
participants from each of the counties participating in the exercise. 
According to Portland officials, their exercise was not realistic for 
responding to a real-world incident. Likewise, New York City officials 
stated that they would have executed a higher quality exercise if DHS 
had not reduced the time frame. Moreover, according to the 2007 grant 
guidance, the UASI areas are not required to conduct any additional 
exercises to further validate their plans. 

Without robust exercises to validate tactical interoperability 
communications plans, the UASI areas can only have limited confidence 
in the plans' effectiveness, and thus the value of DHS's efforts may 
continue to be limited. Similarly, the constraints placed on the 
exercises means that DHS's scorecards of each of the UASI areas are 
based on questionable data. 

SAFECOM Program Has Made Limited Progress in Assisting All Levels of 
Government to Achieve Interoperability: 

Although initiated in 2001, the SAFECOM program has made limited 
progress in improving communications interoperability at all levels of 
government. The program has not addressed state and local 
interoperability with federal agencies, a critical element to 
interoperable communications that is required by the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Further, while the program 
has focused on helping states and localities improve interoperable 
communications by developing tools and guidance for their use, 
SAFECOM's progress in this area has been limited in the selected 
states. Specifically, officials from selected states and localities 
often found that the tools and planning assistance provided by the 
program were not helpful, or they were unaware of what assistance the 
program had to offer. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked 
to poor program management practices, including the lack of a plan for 
improving interoperability across all levels of government and 
inadequate performance measures that would provide feedback to better 
attune tools and assistance with first responder needs. Until SAFECOM 
adopts these key management practices, its progress is likely to remain 
limited. 

SAFECOM Was Established to Improve Interoperable Communications at All 
Levels of Government: 

When SAFECOM was established in 2001, as one of the Office of 
Management and Budget's 25 electronic government initiatives[Footnote 
16] under the management of the Department of the Treasury, its goals 
were to (1) achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the 
nation, (2) achieve federal to state/local interoperability, and (3) 
achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation. Like the 
other e-government initiatives, the program was expected to achieve its 
goals within 18 to 24 months. As we reported in 2004, these are 
challenging tasks that will take many years to fully accomplish, and 
the program had made very limited progress at the time of our 
review.[Footnote 17] 

Since 2001, the management and goals of the program have changed 
several times. Most recently, in 2003, the SAFECOM program was 
transferred to the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within 
the Directorate of Science and Technology in DHS. Its goals included 
increasing interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and 
state public safety agencies, and increasing the number of states that 
have initiated or completed statewide plans.[Footnote 18] Program 
officials now estimate that a minimum level of interoperability will 
not occur until 2008, and it is unknown when full interoperability will 
occur. 

In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 required DHS to establish a program to enhance public safety 
interoperable communications at all levels of government, including 
federal, as well as state and local governments.[Footnote 19] SAFECOM 
has been designated as the program responsible for carrying out this 
requirement. 

SAFECOM Has Not Taken Action to Address Interoperability with Federal 
First Responders: 

While SAFECOM is required to improve interoperable communications at 
all levels of government, the objectives that the program has been 
working toward do not include improving interoperability between 
federal agencies and state and local agencies. For example, when 
conducting their baseline national survey of first responders to 
determine the current level of interoperability, program officials 
included state and local officials, but not federal officials. The 
survey included an extensive list of questions in which respondents 
were asked to rate interoperability (1) with other disciplines, (2) 
with other jurisdictions, and (3) between state and local governments. 
Respondents were also asked at the end of the survey to list federal 
agencies they interoperate with; however, no effort was made to gauge 
the level of interoperability with the federal government, as had been 
done for other disciplines and jurisdictions and between state and 
local governments. 

As a result, SAFECOM has not addressed a variety of problems involving 
interoperability between federal and state and local agencies. 
According to first responders, these difficulties arise when trying to 
establish interoperable communication between federal and state and 
local agencies: 

* Uncoordinated interoperability investments. The Departments of 
Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury are developing the Integrated 
Wireless Network (IWN) to create a consolidated federal wireless 
communications service for federal public safety and law enforcement 
agencies. The level of interoperability that state and local first 
responders will have with federal first responders on this network is 
unknown. 

* Frequency incompatibilities. The National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, which manages frequencies used by federal 
agencies, and the Federal Communications Commission, which manages 
frequencies used by state and local governments, have established 
conflicting time frames for when federal agencies and state and local 
agencies need to implement narrowband systems.[Footnote 20] Further, 
according to an Associate Chief of DHS's Office of Border Patrol, when 
federal communications networks are configured to narrowband, federal 
agencies could have difficulty interoperating with local wideband 
systems unless special radios are procured that can operate both on the 
wideband and narrowband systems. 

* Use of encryption. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), use encryption[Footnote 21] to secure their radio 
communications. Encryption can be vitally important in preserving the 
safety and security of their officers. However, they have not developed 
procedures for sharing the keys to decrypt the communication with state 
or local first responders in order to be able to communicate with them. 

* Unclear coordination procedures. There is uncertainty within the 
first responder community regarding the allowable level of coordination 
and collaboration between federal agencies and state and local 
agencies. For example, while the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration eliminated its requirement that state and 
local officials obtain written permission to use federal frequencies in 
May 2006, FBI officials that we interviewed were unaware that they were 
allowed to share their frequencies without written permission. 

In lieu of having communications systems that enable direct 
interoperability between federal first responders and state and local 
first responders, first responders have resorted to alternative means 
of communicating. For example, state or local agencies may loan radios 
to federal first responders or physically pair a federal first 
responder with a state or local responder so they can share information 
and relay it back to their agencies. While approaches such as these may 
be effective in certain situations, they reflect a general lack of 
planning for communications interoperability. In many cases, using 
"work-arounds" such as these could reduce the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the overall public safety response to an incident. 

SAFECOM officials stated that the program's focus has been on state and 
local agencies because they consider them to be a higher priority. 
Further, while they stated that it would be possible for federal 
agencies to make use of some of the planning tools being developed 
primarily for state and local agencies, SAFECOM has not developed any 
tools that directly address interoperability with federal agencies. 
However, interoperability with federal first responders remains an 
important element in achieving nationwide interoperability and is part 
of SAFECOM's tasking under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004. Until a federal coordinating entity such as 
SAFECOM makes a concerted effort to promote federal interoperability 
with other governmental entities, overall progress in improving 
communications interoperability will remain limited. 

SAFECOM Tools and Assistance Have Had Limited Impact on State and Local 
Agencies: 

In addition to supporting development of the Project 25 suite of 
interoperability standards (discussed in a later section of this 
report), SAFECOM's activities have focused primarily on providing 
planning tools to state and local governments. However, based on our 
review of four states and selected localities, SAFECOM's progress in 
achieving its goals of helping these states and localities improve 
interoperable communications has been limited. 

Several state and local officials did not find the tools and guidance 
useful. For example, of the 10 location[Footnote 22]s we visited that 
were aware of the tools and guidance, 6 had not used the programs' 
Statement of Requirements or its Public Safety Architecture Framework. 
Additionally, 3 of the 4 states we reviewed had not used its Statewide 
Communication Interoperability Planning Methodology to develop a 
statewide communication plan. Further, officials from 4 of the 15 
jurisdictions we reviewed were unaware that the SAFECOM program existed 
or that it provided interoperability guidance. 

SAFECOM's Interoperability Continuum was the most widely used and 
recognized of its tools. Seven of the 15 states and localities we 
visited indicated that they used the continuum to assess their 
interoperability status and plan improvements. Another initiative that 
had a significant impact was the Regional Communications 
Interoperability Pilot. Officials from Kentucky--one of the two states 
that participated in the pilot--indicated that the pilot was very 
helpful in facilitating communications planning by identifying relevant 
stakeholders and bringing those stakeholders together for extended 
discussions about interoperability. And in Nevada, this program 
resulted in documentation of suggested near-term and long-term goals 
for improving interoperability. 

However, the SAFECOM tools that were not widely used represent a 
significant investment of resources by DHS. For example, program 
officials said that they spent $9.2 million developing the Statement of 
Requirements and $2.7 million developing the Public Safety Architecture 
Framework. 

State and local officials provided the following reasons for the 
limited utilization of SAFECOM tools: 

* The tools and guidance are too abstract and do not provide practical 
implementation guidance on specific issues. For instance, the Statement 
of Requirements focuses on functional requirements based on textbook 
definitions of a variety of interoperable communication subjects, such 
as public safety communication needs, public safety roles and 
functions, and the levels of operability and interoperability for each 
major public safety discipline. SAFECOM officials indicated that the 
Statement of Requirements was meant to be a forward-looking document 
unconstrained by the limitations of current technology. However, states 
and localities must work to improve interoperability with technology 
that is currently available, and the Statement of Requirements does not 
describe specific technologies, infrastructure, or business models that 
state and local agencies can refer to when making key decisions 
regarding improvements to their communication systems. Additionally, 
neither the Statement of Requirements nor the Public Safety 
Architecture Framework identifies specific actions a state or local 
agency can take to make improvements. 

* The documents are lengthy and hard to use as reference tools. For 
example, the two published volumes of the Public Safety Architecture 
Framework are approximately 270 pages combined and contain complex 
information about topics such as the elements and subelements of 
communication systems and their relationships to each other and to the 
environment. Officials indicated that they do not have the time to 
examine and analyze long reports that they believed contained limited 
useful information. According to SAFECOM officials, they plan to 
address this concern by publishing a third volume to guide public 
safety agency officials through the process of developing a 
communications system architecture. However, even with additional 
guidance, the framework will remain lengthy and complex. 

* Awareness of SAFECOM and its tools has not reached all state and 
local agencies. Program officials indicated that they take steps to try 
to reach out to the broad first responder community, such as by 
publishing articles in major police and fire periodicals, presenting at 
events covering communications interoperability, and publishing a 
quarterly newsletter on interoperability issues called Interoperability 
Today. However, despite these efforts, several localities that we 
visited were completely unfamiliar with the program and/or the 
assistance it provides. 

Figure 3 identifies which of SAFECOM's tools, guidance, or other 
assistance were used by officials at the locations we visited. 

Figure 3: Use of SAFECOM Tools, Guidance, and Assistance, by Location: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of SAFECOM data. 

Note: We visited 15 locations; however, Franklin County, Kentucky, did 
not indicate which tools they use. 

[End of figure] 

Recently, SAFECOM has focused more on specific implementation issues, 
creating tools such as a writing guide for developing memorandums of 
understanding that could be used to establish agreements on the sharing 
of communication systems across agencies and jurisdictions. Officials 
have also developed a guide for writing standard operating procedures, 
which could be used to prepare written guidelines for incident 
response. Because these tools were still new, we did not receive 
assessments of them from state and local officials. 

Lack of Program Plan and Performance Measures Has Contributed to 
SAFECOM's Limited Impact: 

One factor contributing to the limited impact that SAFECOM has had on 
improving communications interoperability is that its activities have 
not been guided by a program plan. A program plan is a critical tool to 
ensure a program meets its goals and responsibilities. Such a tool is 
used to align planned activities with program goals and objectives, as 
well as define how progress in meeting the goals will be measured, 
compared, and validated. For example, a program plan could be a useful 
tool for ensuring that key program goals--such as promoting 
interoperability across all levels of government including federal 
responders--are being addressed. In addition, a program plan would 
provide the structure to help plan tools and guidance that would 
address the greatest needs. Further, a program plan could be used to 
delineate performance measures, which are essential to determining the 
effectiveness of a program and for identifying the areas of a program 
that need additional attention. 

Rather than using a program plan to guide their activities, SAFECOM 
officials stated that they develop tools and guidance based on a list 
of suggestions obtained from first responders. The SAFECOM Executive 
Committee--a steering group comprised of public safety officials from 
across the country--prioritizes the list of suggestions, but this 
prioritization has not been used to develop a plan. Instead, program 
officials have made ad hoc decisions regarding which suggestions to 
implement based on executive committee input, as well as the difficulty 
of implementation. While this approach incorporates a degree of 
prioritization from first responders, it does not provide the structure 
and traceability of a program plan. 

Program officials have established six performance measures[Footnote 
23] to assess progress, including the percentage of fire, emergency 
medical services, and law enforcement organizations that have 
established informal interoperability agreements with other public 
safety organizations; the percentage of public safety agencies that 
report using interoperability to some degree in their operations; the 
percentage of states that have completed statewide interoperability 
plans; the percentage of grant programs for public safety 
communications that include SAFECOM guidance; and the amount of 
reduction in the cycle time for national interoperability standards 
development. However, several key aspects of the program are not being 
measured. For example, one of the program's goals is to increase the 
development and adoption of standards. However, the only associated 
performance measure is reduction in the cycle time for national 
interoperability standards development--not the extent to which 
adoption of standards has increased or whether interoperability is 
being facilitated. Also, in assessing the growth of interoperable 
communications capacity at local, tribal, and state public safety 
agencies, SAFECOM's measures--the percentage of states that have 
established informal interoperability agreements with other public 
safety organizations and the percentage of public safety agencies that 
report using interoperability to some degree in their operations -- 
addresses only two of the five areas that SAFECOM has defined as key to 
improving interoperability (it does not assess improvements made in 
governance, technology, or training). Moreover, none of the program's 
measures assess the extent to which the first responder community finds 
the tools and assistance helpful or the effectiveness of program 
outreach initiatives. Consequently, measures of the effectiveness of 
the program and areas for improvement are not being collected and are 
not driving improvements in the program, contributing to its limited 
impact. According to SAFECOM officials, by mid-2007, they plan to 
establish a measure to assess customer satisfaction. 

Until DHS develops and implements a program plan that includes goals 
focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of government, 
establishes performances measures that determine if key aspects of the 
SAFECOM program are being achieved, and assesses the extent to which 
the first responder community finds the tools and assistance helpful, 
the impact of its efforts to improve interoperable communications among 
federal, state, and local agencies will likely remain limited. 

Recent Progress Has Been Made in Developing Interoperability Standards, 
but Early Implementation Has Had Unsatisfactory Results: 

Until recently, little progress had been made in developing Project 25 
standards--a suite of national standards that are intended to enable 
interoperability among the communications products of different 
vendors. Although one of the eight major subsets of standards was 
defined in the project's first 4 years (from 1989 to 1993), from 1993 
through 2005, no additional standards were completed that could be used 
by a vendor to develop elements of a Project 25 compliant system. To 
its credit, over the past 2 years, the private-sector coordinating body 
responsible for Project 25 has defined specifications for three 
additional subsets of standards. However, ambiguities in the published 
standards have led to incompatibilities among products made by 
different vendors, and no compliance testing has been conducted to 
ensure vendors' products are interoperable. Nevertheless, DHS has 
strongly encouraged state and local agencies to use grant funding to 
purchase Project 25 radios, which are substantially more expensive than 
non-Project 25 radios. As a result, states and local agencies have 
purchased fewer, more expensive radios, which still may not be 
interoperable and thus may provide them with minimal additional 
benefits. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to provide more 
flexibility in purchasing communications equipment, states and 
localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot be assured that 
their investments are likely to result in meaningful gains in 
interoperability. 

Until Recently, Progress in Developing Interoperability Standards Had 
Been Slow: 

Initial development of Project 25 began over 15 years ago. It took 4 
years, from 1989 to 1993, to develop the standards that comprised the 
first of eight interfaces, known as the common air interface. The 
common air interface is one of the most critical elements of Project 
25, and, therefore, efforts to develop standards for this interface 
were initiated first. However, from 1993 through 2005, no additional 
standards were developed that could be used by a vendor to develop 
additional elements of a Project 25 compliant system. 

Concerned about the slow development of Project 25 standards, the 
conference committee on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2005,[Footnote 24] encouraged NIST and the Department of Justice 
to work with SAFECOM to consider the issuance of interim standards for 
interoperable communication systems. According to NIST officials, they, 
along with their federal partners, have established a process for 
developing interim standards and plan to institute it if progress in 
the development of Project 25 standards is not sufficiently 
accelerated. Industry representatives and public safety practitioners 
responded to these events by increasing the pace and scope of their 
standards development activities. As a result of their efforts, in the 
past 2 years, significant progress has been made in defining three 
additional critical interfaces: the fixed station subsystem interface, 
the console subsystem interface, and the inter-RF subsystem interface. 
NIST officials indicated that the focus has been on these interfaces 
because they will add significant functionality to the overall set of 
Project 25 standards. 

Table 4 shows the progress that has been made on each of the eight 
Project 25 interfaces as of August 2006. Figure 4 shows the 
relationships among these interfaces. 

Table 4: Status of Project 25 Interfaces: 

Interface: Common air interface; 
Description: Defines the wireless access between mobile and portable 
radios and between the portable and mobile radios and the fixed or base 
station radios; 
Status: This interface is considered the most mature of the eight 
interfaces; however, parts of it are currently being revised to clarify 
ambiguities. A full set of product compliance tests is not yet 
available; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Currently available. 

Interface: Subscriber data peripheral interface; 
Description: Characterizes the signaling for data transfer that must 
take place between radios and the data devices connected to the radios; 
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other 
interfaces. In addition, there are no tests currently in place for this 
interface to test product compliance; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Limited availability of 
products that contain proprietary components. 

Interface: Fixed station subsystem interface; 
Description: Describes the signaling and messages between the radio 
frequency subsystem and the fixed/base station subsystem and between 
the console subsystem and the fixed/base station subsystem; 
Status: The initial version of standards has been developed for this 
interface; however, more work remains before this interface will be 
completed, such as developing compliance testing standards; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007. 

Interface: Console subsystem interface; 
Description: Defines the signaling between the radio frequency 
subsystem and the console subsystem; 
Status: The initial version of the standards is in the final stages of 
completion and is expected to be published in early 2007. Compliance 
testing standards are under development; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007-2008. 

Interface: Network management interface; 
Description: Allows administrators to control and monitor the network 
fault management and network performance management; 
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other 
interfaces. In addition, there are no standards currently in place for 
this interface to test products for compliance; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: To be determined. 

Interface: Data network interface; 
Description: Describes the radio frequency subsystem's connections to 
computers, data networks, external data sources, etc; 
Status: The interface is being redeveloped to align with other 
interfaces. In addition, there are no standards currently in place for 
this interface to test products for Project 25 compliance; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: Limited availability of 
products that contain proprietary components. 

Interface: Telephone interconnect interface; 
Description: Allows users to connect through the public switched 
telephone network using their radios rather than cellular phones; 
Status: Standards have been developed for the interface; however, work 
remains before this interface will be completed, such as developing 
compliance testing standards; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: To be determined. 

Interface: Inter-RF subsystem interface; 
Description: Allows users in one system to communicate with users in 
another system; 
Status: The initial version of this standard was published in mid 2006. 
Compliance testing standards are under development; 
NIST projection for product availability[A]: 2007. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIST and TIA data. 

[A] This information is based on NIST's working knowledge of Project 25 
product lines. NIST has not performed a worldwide inventory of Project 
25 products. 

[End of table] 

Figure 4: Project 25 Interfaces: 

[See PDF for image] 

Sources: GAO analysis of TIA and NIST data. 

[End of figure] 

Implementation of Systems Based on Incomplete Project 25 Standards Has 
Been Problematic: 

There are a number of obstacles hindering effective implementation of 
first responder communications systems based on Project 25 standards: 

* Standards are incomplete or not well-defined: NIST officials have 
stated that key standards that have been defined for several of the 
eight interfaces have not been adequately specified, allowing vendors 
to develop products based on inconsistent interpretations. For example, 
Project 25 manufacturers have determined that the specifications for 
the conventional and trunked mode operations of the common air 
interface--which is considered to be the most mature of the eight 
interfaces--were vague and led to inconsistent interpretations. More 
specifically, between 2003 and 2005, NIST conducted interoperability 
tests on the conventional operations mode of six different 
manufacturers' radios and found that none of them passed all aspects of 
the tests. In addition, according to NIST officials, in 2005, a 
manufacturer conducted interoperability tests on the trunked operations 
mode of three manufacturers' radios and also found that none of them 
passed the tests. More recently, in 2006, a manufacturer conducting 
interoperability tests found improvements in the consistency of other 
manufacturers' interpretations. However, according to NIST officials, 
ambiguities still need to be resolved in this interface. Additionally, 
many options available on radios are not specified in the standards, 
allowing vendors to address these capabilities with unique or 
proprietary technologies, which can cause interoperability problems. As 
a result, while recent tests have shown improvements, vendors have 
developed incompatible, proprietary products rather than interoperable, 
standards-based products. 

* Lack of compliance testing has limited product interoperability: 
According to NIST officials, formal peer-review testing is necessary to 
ensure compliance with standards and interoperability among products. 
We have previously reported[Footnote 25] that independent testing and 
evaluation of commercial products and accreditation of the laboratories 
that perform the test and evaluations can give agencies increased 
assurance that the products will perform as vendors claim. However, 
since 1995, Project 25 radios have been marketed to and purchased by 
federal, state, and local agencies without any formal compliance 
testing to validate vendors' claims of compliance with the Project 25 
standards. As a result, recent testing has shown that products labeled 
"Project 25 compliant" do not necessarily interoperate. 

* State and local agencies do not know how to select Project 25 
products: With no formal compliance testing for Project 25 products, 
state and local agencies have limited means to determine if the 
products they purchase are compliant with the standards. Therefore, in 
absence of any other information, agencies have relied on information 
provided by vendors. Further, vendor products have many different 
levels of functionality, and agency officials may not understand their 
specific needs well enough to purchase equipment tailored to their 
specific requirements that does not include costly functionality that 
they do not need. However, comparative information about product 
functionality and typical first responder requirements is not currently 
in a centralized location, making it difficult for officials to be able 
to judge which products are most appropriate for their agency's needs. 
For example, according to one manufacturer, public works agencies and 
schools would likely need radios with less functionality, while 
firefighters would likely need a midrange radio with more features, and 
a command center or federal law enforcement agency might need the most 
expensive radios with the greatest number of features. Because of the 
complexity of product options, agencies may not always be making well-
informed decisions on the purchase of radios. 

* Complete Project 25 systems can be prohibitively expensive: Project 
25 radios are significantly more expensive than conventional analog 
radios, and while state and local agencies are paying two to three 
times more for Project 25 radios, they are not always able to take 
advantage of the intended interoperability benefits because they cannot 
afford to procure complete systems. Project 25 radios for first 
responders can range in price from about $1,000 to about $5,000. Most 
Project 25 radios used by first responders cost around $2,500. 
According to officials, a conventional analog radio suitable for first 
responder work generally costs about two to three times less than 
Project 25 radios. Benefits of using Project 25 radios, such as 
interoperability among multiple vendors' equipment, cannot be fully 
realized until a complete Project 25 system (base stations, repeaters, 
and radios) is implemented. Fully replacing an existing radio system 
with a Project 25 system is very expensive. For example, Arlington 
County, Virginia--a relatively small county--is acquiring and 
implementing a full Project 25 environment for $16.8 million. Many 
localities do not have the funding to make such a large investment. 

Nevertheless, since 2003, DHS has strongly encouraged state and local 
agencies to use grant funding from the agency to purchase Project 25 
compliant equipment. DHS grant guidance--which was developed by 
SAFECOM--states that all new voice system purchases should be 
compatible with the Project 25 suite of standards to ensure that 
equipment or systems are capable of interoperating with other public 
safety land mobile equipment or systems. If a grant applicant is 
interested in purchasing non-Project 25 compliant equipment, the 
applicant must demonstrate in its application that the system or 
equipment being proposed will lead to enhanced interoperability. 

While states and localities have purchased Project 25 radios at the 
direction of DHS, there is little indication that these radios have 
enhanced interoperability. Most jurisdictions we visited were not using 
the Project 25 capabilities, such as interoperating with different 
vendors' radios, since they had not fully replaced their existing radio 
communications infrastructure with a complete Project 25 system. 
Specifically, of the 11 localities we visited, 8 were buying Project 25 
radios and, of these, 7 were not using the Project 25 capabilities of 
the radios. Thus, as a result of the DHS requirement to buy Project 25 
equipment, agencies have purchased fewer, more expensive radios with 
little or no additional benefit to date. Table 5 shows a sample of 
spending by localities on Project 25 radios and their use of the 
Project 25 capabilities. 

Table 5: Sample Project 25 Radio Purchases: 

Locality: Lee County, Florida; 
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 2,056; 
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $4,305,850; 
Average Price per radio: $2,094; 
Using Project 25 capabilities: No. 

Locality: Albany County, New York; 
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 91; 
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $120,879; 
Average Price per radio: $1,328; 
Using Project 25 capabilities: No. 

Locality: Louisville, Kentucky; 
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 52; 
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $234,099; 
Average Price per radio: $4,502; 
Using Project 25 capabilities: Yes. 

Locality: Jackson County, Oregon; 
Number of Project 25 radios purchased: 169; 
Amount spent on Project 25 radios: $571,338; 
Average Price per radio: $3,380; 
Using Project 25 capabilities: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of localities' data. 

Note: This table represents Project 25 radio purchases for which data 
was available and, therefore, may not include all Project 25 radio 
purchases by these localities. 

[End of table] 

Efforts Are Under Way to Mitigate Project 25 Problems: 

To address the lack of well-defined standards, users and manufacturers 
have been revising the standards for the conventional and trunked mode 
operations of the common air interface to clarify ambiguities. To 
address the issue of a lack of formal compliance testing, SAFECOM, 
NIST, and the Project 25 steering committee, began developing a peer 
compliance assessment program for Project 25 products in April 2005. 
This compliance assessment program is to use various vendors' approved 
laboratories[Footnote 26] to test Project 25 systems through a set of 
agreed-upon tests that will validate that the systems from various 
vendors can successfully interoperate and meet conformance and 
performance requirements. According to NIST, the vendors will be 
expected to conduct the tests in compliance with a handbook on general 
testing procedures and requirements, which NIST is preparing to 
publish. The assessment program is to be implemented in three phases, 
as described in table 6. 

Table 6: Development Schedule for Project 25 Compliance Assessment 
Program: 

Stage: Stage I; 
Description: NIST is to develop a formal laboratory approval process 
for manufacturers to conduct compliance testing and a process handbook; 
Conduct initial common air interface testing; NIST and its partners 
will develop an automated test software suite to facilitate Project 25 
performance testing, which will be made available for use by test 
laboratories and manufacturers. Subscriber units and base stations will 
also be evaluated for performance; 
Status: NIST is working to finalize the formal laboratory approval 
process, and the process handbook. Parts of the trunked 
interoperability test standard for the common air interface are 
complete. Informal testing is expected to begin by March 2007. Formal 
testing is expected to being by mid- 2007; The automated test software 
suite to facilitate Project 25 common air interface performance testing 
is expected to be available by early 2007; Other aspects of the trunked 
mode for the common air interface are being revised and, therefore, 
these aspects will not be tested until such revisions are made. 

Stage: Stage II; 
Description: Test procedures will be developed and executed that will 
demonstrate the interoperability of Project 25 radios in both trunked 
and conventional modes of operation; 
Status: Development and completion of remaining test procedures for the 
common air interface are contingent upon completion of revisions to 
parts of this interface; The conventional mode interoperability test 
standard is expected to be available in mid-2007. 

Stage: Stage III; 
Description: Development of test procedures for the other critical 
Project 25 interfaces; 
Status: Conformance test procedures are currently being developed for 
the inter-RF subsystem interface and the fixed station subsystem 
interface; Performance test procedures are currently being developed 
for the inter-RF subsystem interface and the console subsystem 
interface; In addition, the interoperability test standards for the 
inter-RF subsystem interface are in the initial stages of development. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIST data. 

[End of table] 

Additionally, SAFECOM has issued guidance to supplement the 2007 DHS 
grant guidance stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, grant 
recipients purchasing Project 25 equipment must obtain documented 
evidence from the manufacturer that the equipment has been tested and 
passed all available compliance assessment test procedures for 
performance, conformance, and interoperability. The guidance also 
specifies the aspects of Project 25 equipment that are available for 
testing and that should be tested before a public safety agency 
acquires the equipment. However, as of January 2007, only limited 
aspects of the common air interface had been defined fully enough to 
conduct interoperability tests. Further, NIST's testing procedures 
handbook was not yet complete and thus vendors were unable to conduct 
testing. According to NIST officials, it has not been determined when 
the full set of conformance, performance, and interoperability tests 
for the common air interface will be available. 

NIST and SAFECOM are also working on ways to help agencies make 
informed decisions when purchasing Project 25 radios to help them 
acquire features that are Project 25 compliant. Specifically, NIST and 
SAFECOM have developed a decision tree to help guide officials in 
selecting the appropriate Project 25 capabilities. NIST has also helped 
to develop a new process for posting test results online so that 
potential buyers can have ready access to this information. 

While efforts are under way to address several of these issues, others 
remain. Specifically, DHS continues to strongly encourage state and 
local agencies to purchase Project 25 compliant equipment even though 
compliance testing is not yet available. Without flexibility to address 
their needs with equipment that is the most effective, economical, and 
meets defined interoperability requirements aligned with a statewide 
plan, states and localities that purchase Project 25 equipment cannot 
be assured that their investments are likely to result in meaningful 
gains in interoperability. 

Conclusions: 

DHS grants, along with its technical assistance, have helped to make 
improvements on a variety of specific interoperability projects. 
However, in selected states, strategic planning has generally not been 
used to guide investments or provide assistance to improve 
communications interoperability across all levels of government. 
Specifically, not all states had plans in place to guide their 
investments toward long-term interoperability gains; no national plan 
was in place to coordinate investments across states; and while UASI 
officials stated that the technical assistance offered to them had been 
helpful, DHS curtailed full-scale exercises, limiting their value in 
measuring progress. Until DHS takes a more strategic approach to 
improving interoperable communications, such as including in its 
decision making an assessment of how grant requests align with 
statewide communications plans, and conducts a thorough assessment to 
identify strategies to mitigate obstacles between federal agencies and 
state and local agencies, states and localities are likely to make 
limited progress in improving interoperability. Additionally, until DHS 
plans another round of full-scale exercises that provide UASI areas 
with sufficient planning time, the robustness and effectiveness of UASI 
plans will be limited. 

The SAFECOM program has had a limited impact on improving 
communications interoperability among federal, state, and local 
agencies. The program's limited effectiveness can be linked to poor 
program management practices, such as the lack of a plan for improving 
interoperability across all levels of government, and inadequate 
performance measures to fully gauge the effectiveness of its tools and 
assistance. The recent establishment of the OEC creates an opportunity 
for DHS to improve program management practices among formerly separate 
component organizations, including SAFECOM. Without a program plan for 
SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability programs that specifically 
addresses improvements to interoperable communications from federal to 
state and local agencies, and includes measures to assess the 
usefulness of its efforts, the effectiveness of the program is likely 
to remain limited. 

While development of a comprehensive suite of standards such as Project 
25 is critical to achieving interoperability among different 
manufacturers' products, such a suite is not yet fully developed. 
Further, ambiguities in published standards have led to 
incompatibilities among products made by different vendors and, to 
date, no compliance testing has been conducted to ensure that vendors' 
products interoperate. Nevertheless, DHS has strongly encouraged state 
and local agencies to use grant funding to purchase Project 25 
compliant equipment. Until DHS modifies its grant guidance to give 
states and localities the flexibility to address their communications 
equipment needs effectively, economically, and in a way that meets 
interoperability requirements as defined in their statewide plans, 
states and local agencies are likely to continue to purchase expensive 
equipment that provides them with minimal additional benefits. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better ensure that progress is made in improving interoperable 
communications among federal, state, and local first responders, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following 
five actions: 

* assess how states' grant requests support their statewide 
communications plans and include the assessment as a factor in making 
DHS grant allocation decisions; 

* plan for new full-scale exercises for UASI areas that provides local 
officials with sufficient time to develop and implement exercises to 
validate the robustness and effectiveness of their tactical 
interoperable communications plans; 

* develop and implement a program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC 
interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving 
interoperability among all levels of government; 

* include in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC 
interoperability programs quantifiable performance measures that can be 
used to determine the extent to which each of the goals have been 
accomplished and that can be used to assess the effectiveness and 
usefulness of SAFECOM tools, assistance, and outreach, and make 
improvements based on the feedback; and: 

* modify grant guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing 
communications equipment until standards for completed interfaces have 
been fully defined and products have been certified compliant. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received written comments from the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and 
the Director of the DHS liaison office for GAO and the Office of the 
Inspector General. Letters from these agencies are reprinted in 
appendixes III and IV. Commerce provided updated information and 
technical comments to help ensure the information in the report is 
accurately perceived. We have incorporated these comments as 
appropriate. 

In its response to our five recommendations, DHS agreed with two, 
stated that it would defer commenting on two, and disagreed with one 
recommendation. 

Regarding our recommendation that DHS develop and implement a program 
plan for SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) 
interoperability programs that includes goals focused on improving 
interoperability among all levels of government, the Director indicated 
that DHS agrees with the intent of the recommendation and stated that 
the department is currently working to develop a program plan. 

However, DHS raised concern about the perceived implication that no 
action had been taken. It stated that SAFECOM has always had goals for 
improving interoperability among local, state, tribal, and federal 
emergency response agencies. Our review showed that while the program 
has had broad goals that include federal, as well as state and local 
agencies, its specific program goals and activities have not focused on 
improving interoperable communications between federal and other 
agencies. For example, one of the program's goals is to increase 
interoperable communications capacity of local, tribal, and state 
public safety agencies, not federal agencies. Thus, it will be 
important for DHS to develop and implement a program plan that includes 
goals focusing on improving interoperability among all levels of 
government. 

DHS agreed with our recommendation to include quantifiable performance 
measures in the program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability 
programs. DHS indicated that it intends to establish such measures by 
the third quarter of 2007. 

DHS stated that it is deferring comments on two recommendations: (1) 
assess how states' grant requests support their statewide 
communications plans and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise for 
UASI areas to validate their interoperable communications plans. 

DHS disagreed with our recommendation that it modify grant guidance to 
provide more flexibility in purchasing communications equipment until 
standards for completed interfaces have been fully defined and products 
have been certified compliant with all aspects of the standards. The 
Director stated that the recommendation would require SAFECOM to amend 
its interoperability grant guidance until after the entire Project 25 
suite of standards is complete and could undermine remaining 
negotiations between the public safety community and equipment 
manufacturers. We agree that development of a comprehensive suite of 
standards such as Project 25 is critical to achieving interoperability 
among different manufacturers' products. We also agree that not all 
interfaces need to be fully defined before agencies can begin acquiring 
Project 25 products; thus we have clarified the recommendation to 
reflect this. However, we are not recommending that the public safety 
community be prohibited from acquiring Project 25 equipment, and thus 
we do not believe negotiations with equipment manufacturers would be 
undermined. Until critical interfaces are better defined and products 
have been certified compliant, DHS should allow state and local 
agencies the flexibility to purchase whatever products they can obtain 
that offer the best value and performance for their needs. 

DHS also stated that it estimates that the Project 25 standards will be 
complete within the next 18 to 24 months, and stated that fiscal year 
2007 grant funding will be spent by local public safety agencies not in 
fiscal year 2007 but in subsequent years. We have modified the 
discussion of this issue in the report to reflect this information. 
However, as previously stated, much additional work remains to be 
accomplished. 

Additionally, DHS stated that our report should include other major 
programs that focus on interoperability among federal responders, such 
as the newly created Office of Emergency Communications within DHS, the 
Integrated Wireless Network, the Interoperable Communications Technical 
Assistance Program, and the Federal Partnership for Interoperable 
Communications. However, our report does discuss the first three of 
these. The primary purpose of the Federal Partnership for Interoperable 
Communications is to serve as a coordinating body to address technical 
and operational activities within the federal wireless community; it 
has limited applicability to state and local interoperability. 

Finally, DHS raised concern with our view that SAFECOM had mistakenly 
made local, tribal, and state emergency responders its highest 
priority. DHS stated that when SAFECOM was established as one of the 
electronic government initiatives, it was placed within the government- 
to-government portfolio. According to DHS, state and local government 
agencies are the primary customers of this portfolio. However, 
according to OMB, the goal of the government-to-government portfolio is 
to forge new partnerships among all levels of government, not just 
state and local. Additionally, as we have previously stated, when 
SAFECOM was initially established, one of its major goals was to 
achieve federal to state/local interoperability. However, it is no 
longer a goal for SAFECOM. DHS also stated that since 90 percent of the 
public safety infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by 
local jurisdictions, state and local interoperability is a higher 
priority. However, our review has shown that in major incidents such as 
a terrorist attack, a major hurricane, or wildland fire, federal, 
state, and local first responders will need to interoperate in order to 
respond effectively to the incident. Therefore, interoperability with 
federal first responders should be included as a key element in the 
department's strategy for improving interoperable communications 
throughout the nation. 

DHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Homeland 
Security and Commerce and other interested congressional committees and 
subcommittees. We also will make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at 
koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 

Signed by: 

Keith A. Rhodes: 
Chief Technologist: 
Director, Center for Technology and Engineering: 

Signed by: 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and technical assistance have helped 
to improve interoperable communications in selected states, (2) the 
progress the SAFECOM program has made in improving interoperable 
communications, and (3) the progress that has been made in the 
development and implementation of interoperable communications 
standards. 

To determine the extent to which DHS funding and technical assistance 
helped to improve interoperable communication in these states, we 
reviewed documentation and interviewed state and local officials from 
selected states. 

We selected four states as case studies, using the following criteria: 

* All of the states must have received at least an average amount of 
funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. 

* One of the states must have received over $100 million of grant 
funding for interoperable communications from DHS. 

* One of the states must have received assistance from SAFECOM in 
applying the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning 
Methodology. 

* One of the states must have had an Urban Area Security Initiative 
(UASI) area involved in DHS's RapidCom program. 

* One of the states must border another country. 

* At least one of the states must be one of the top 10 states that 
regularly faces wildland fires. 

* At least one of the states must be one of the top states that 
regularly faces other large natural disasters, such as hurricanes or 
earthquakes. 

We selected localities from each state to visit, which included (1) the 
UASI region which received the most funding from DHS, (2) the non-UASI 
county that received the largest amount of DHS funding, and (3) the 
county and city where the state capital is located.[Footnote 27] From 
each of these states and localities, we obtained and reviewed 
documentation such as grant funding amounts, Tactical Interoperability 
Communication Plans, exercise reports, and communication system 
documentation. We also met with interoperability committee members and 
first responders. Additionally, we obtained and analyzed documentation 
from, and met with DHS officials who are responsible for monitoring the 
use of DHS funds in each of these states. 

To determine the progress SAFECOM has made in improving interoperable 
communications, we reviewed SAFECOM documentation such as its Statewide 
Communication Interoperability Planning Methodology, Public Safety 
Architecture Framework, and Statement of Requirements. We also analyzed 
program management documentation (such as program goals, initiatives, 
and performance measures), interviewed SAFECOM officials to discuss the 
progress of the program, and interviewed state and local officials to 
determine their use of SAFECOM tools and guidance. To obtain Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) information, we relied on interviews 
conducted by another GAO team. 

To determine progress in developing and implementing interoperable 
communications standards, we obtained and reviewed documentation from 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) officials on 
standards development such as status updates and recent testimonies. 
Additionally, we reviewed documentation from states and localities to 
determine the extent to which they are implementing Project 25 products 
and spending on Project 25 products. We also met with officials from 
NIST and representatives from communications equipment manufactures. 

Because our objectives were focused on DHS efforts to improve 
interoperable communications, we neither assessed programs in other 
agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission or the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, nor reviewed issues 
related to spectrum allocation.[Footnote 28] 

We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; 
Tallahassee, Fort Myer, and Miami, Florida; Louisville, Frankfort, and 
Mount Sterling, Kentucky; Albany, Syracuse, and Brooklyn, New York; and 
Beaverton, Salem, and Medford, Oregon, from April 2006 to February 
2007, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: First Responder Communications Systems within Selected 
States: 

There is wide variation in the frequencies (i.e., very high frequency 
(VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF)) and radio technologies (i.e., 
digital, analog, conventional, and trunked) that are used among 
federal, state, and local agencies within each of the four states we 
reviewed. A summary of communications systems and interoperability 
initiatives in each of these four states follows. 

Florida: 

There are over 150 radio systems in use within the state of Florida. To 
improve interoperability among these systems, Florida officials have 
developed several centralized solutions that are used throughout the 
state at all levels of government. Localities maintain their existing 
communications systems, relying on Florida's statewide systems only 
when they need to interoperate with another agency or jurisdiction. 
According to DHS, Florida has received approximately $55.7[Footnote 29] 
million in DHS funding from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 
to improve interoperable communications. 

Governance: 

Florida's centralized approach entails making funding decisions through 
a body (the Domestic Security Oversight Council) supported by a 
hierarchy of communications-related committees that includes local 
representation from each of the seven regions in the state. According 
to state officials, for the statewide interoperability solutions, 
Florida does not allocate DHS funding to local agencies; it takes on 
the responsibility of centrally purchasing equipment to ensure that all 
agencies and jurisdictions have equipment that is compatible. UASI 
grants are awarded directly to the UASI areas; therefore, Florida does 
not centrally manage those funds. 

State Approach: 

To improve the interoperability among the 150 disparate communications 
systems throughout the state, Florida officials have developed the 
following several statewide solutions: 

* In 2003, the Domestic Security Oversight Council and its supporting 
communication committees determined that it would not be economically 
feasible to replace all existing systems in the state with one new 
system. It therefore decided to develop a "backbone" system that could 
connect with each of the existing systems. This system, referred to as 
the Florida Interoperability Network, establishes network connections 
between federal, state, and local dispatch centers across the state 
(see fig. 5). It enables dispatchers to connect first responders on 
disparate radio systems and frequencies to allow them to directly 
communicate with one another. Existing independent systems are 
maintained. According to state officials, as of January 2007, first 
responders in 64 of Florida's 67 counties are able to have their 
communications patched to each other as needed via the network. 

Figure 5: Illustration of Florida's Interoperability Network: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on Florida data. 

[End of figure] 

Legend: 

IP=Internet Protocol: 

* As part of the Florida Interoperability Network, Florida officials 
are also working to establish additional mutual aid channels that are 
intended to provide radio service to first responders outside the range 
of their agency's local system or when they need to communicate with 
users not on their local systems. These channels are intended to expand 
geographic coverage to ensure that, wherever they go, Florida's first 
responders have radio communication capability. To this end, officials 
are adding 428 tower sites to the existing 93 sites across the state. 

* Florida also acquired and implemented a radio communications system 
to serve law enforcement units of state agencies and to serve local 
public safety agencies through a mutual aid channel. The Statewide Law 
Enforcement Radio System provides state law enforcement officers with a 
shared digital, trunked radio system that serves over 6,500 users with 
14,000 radios in patrol cars, boats, motorcycles, and aircraft. 

* Florida's first federally funded project was the Emergency Deployable 
Interoperable Communications Systems. These are mobile systems that can 
be deployed to a specific response area to patch together disparate 
communications systems. According to state officials, these systems are 
generally used in one of the following situations: (1) to tie different 
radio systems together in an area that is not connected to the Florida 
Interoperability Network, (2) to connect different radio systems 
together if the network becomes inoperable, or (3) to tie disparate 
radios together when assisting in an out-of-state incident, such as 
Hurricane Katrina. Nine of these systems were purchased and deployed 
throughout the state. 

* Florida has seven Mutual Aid Radio Communications units in the state, 
and officials are building an additional unit. The units are stand- 
alone mobile interoperable communications networks. Unlike Emergency 
Deployable Interoperable Communications Systems, Mutual Aid Radio 
Communications units include a cache of radios that can be distributed 
to first responders, a tower, and a mobile repeater system, so no 
patching needs to be done. These units are used when the local 
communications systems become inoperable, such as when a hurricane 
destroys the local communications infrastructure. The units provide 
temporary infrastructure for a response area to maintain communication 
during an incident. 

Local Approach: 

Florida localities vary in their approaches and the level of 
interoperability within their regions. They utilize the statewide 
solutions to supplement their existing systems. For example, the 35 to 
40 different radio systems throughout the Miami UASI area have limited 
direct interoperability. The Miami region relies on patching 
mechanisms, including the Florida Interoperability Network, to provide 
interoperable communications when needed. In contrast, according to 
officials, government agencies within Lee County, with the exception of 
the school board, utilize the same communications systems and, 
therefore, are all directly interoperable. The level of 
interoperability with surrounding counties varies. When they need to 
communicate with neighboring jurisdictions or state first responders, 
they utilize the interoperability network. 

Kentucky: 

While Kentucky first responders coordinate interoperability primarily 
by sharing frequencies and establishing patches, the state is 
establishing mutual aid channels to better enable responders on 
different frequencies to communicate through patches. According to DHS, 
from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, Kentucky received $50 
million from DHS for interoperable communications. 

Governance: 

Kentucky's governance structure for interoperable communications is 
organized centrally at the state level through the Kentucky Wireless 
Interoperability Executive Committee. To ensure that the committee has 
an awareness of initiatives across the state, all state agencies and 
local government entities must present project plans for primary 
wireless public safety voice or data communications systems for review 
and recommendation by the committee, even if no state or federal 
funding is used for the system. While the committee only has the 
authority to decline or approve projects funded with state or federal 
dollars, a large majority of local projects are financed through state 
or federal funding. 

State Approach: 

Kentucky's strategy to improve interoperable communications in the near 
term is to utilize statewide mutual aid channels that allow agencies on 
different communication systems to tune into a dedicated frequency 
shared among one or more public safety agencies. Kentucky also plans to 
implement communications bridges to patch different systems together. 

The mutual aid approach requires the deployment of three channels, one 
for each frequency band that Kentucky public safety agencies currently 
use. Currently, approximately 34 percent of applicable agencies have 
signed a memorandum of understanding to commit to using the mutual aid 
channels. Other agencies that have not yet signed a memorandum are also 
utilizing the channels. 

Kentucky officials are also in the process of implementing a console-to-
console bridge solution that will allow dispatchers to patch users on 
one frequency to users on another frequency (see fig. 6). For example, 
a first responder using a lower frequency who needs to talk to a first 
responder using a higher frequency would contact the Kentucky State 
Police dispatch center to request a patch. The dispatcher would then 
use a patching mechanism to patch the two channels so that the 
responders could talk directly to each other. The solution is 
operational in two of the three frequency bands and is nearing 
completion in the third. 

Figure 6: Console-to-Console Bridge Solution: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on Kentucky data. 

[End of figure] 

To supplement voice communications interoperability, Kentucky has 
implemented a wireless data communications interoperability solution as 
well. This solution provides functionality such as records management, 
real-time crime coverage, real-time data collection, and instant 
messaging. The system consists of approximately 165 base stations 
throughout the state to supply continuous wireless coverage in most 
regions. First responders use mobile data terminals to communicate with 
each other and, in many cases, retrieve information from their agency's 
database. Kentucky's mobile data network currently has coverage across 
approximately 95 percent of the state's primary and secondary road 
systems. 

In the long term, the state officials intend to build a statewide 
public safety communications and interoperability infrastructure. They 
are in the process of completing a statewide baseline communications 
study as an initial step in the planning phase. No further specific 
initiatives and milestones have yet been identified for this project. 

Local Approach: 

Interoperability is typically coordinated at the city and county 
levels. In the jurisdictions we visited, interoperability solutions 
included planning in advance to program other frequencies into radios, 
establishing patches through disparate communication systems through a 
dispatch center, and swapping radios. 

* In Louisville, Kentucky, both UHF and VHF systems are in use and, 
when necessary, connected through patching mechanisms. Many responders 
carry both a UHF and VHF radio in their vehicles. For major incidents, 
a mobile vehicle with a repeater system can be deployed to connect 
first responders. In addition, since 2000, Louisville has been 
utilizing a wireless data communications interoperability solution that 
includes 550 first responders in the Louisville metropolitan area. 

* All local agencies within Franklin County use VHF systems; first 
responders program each others' channels into their radios. Frankfort 
and Franklin County use mutual aid channels when needed. First 
responders have difficulty connecting to the Kentucky State Police, as 
that agency recently switched to a digital, trunked communications 
system. Currently, to connect to the state police, Frankfort and 
Franklin police contact a dispatch center and request a patch to 
Kentucky State Police. 

* Montgomery County agencies use both UHF and VHF systems. First 
responders within the county and in neighboring counties typically 
program each others' channels into their radios. Communication with 
state agencies varies, for example, fire and EMS agencies in Montgomery 
County cannot communicate with their state counterparts at present, 
whereas local police can communicate with the state police through 
mutual aid channels, or in instances in which they have interoperable 
radios. 

New York: 

New York is currently in the process of implementing a statewide system 
that will connect all state agencies and offer connection services to 
local agencies. This initiative is being funded by the state. 
Localities continue to develop and maintain their own communication 
systems and interoperability solutions. According to DHS, from fiscal 
year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, New York State has received $145.5 
million in grant funding for interoperable communications. 

Governance: 

New York has established a Statewide Interoperability Executive 
Committee that is currently working to establish a state 
interoperability plan. In addition, there are several different groups 
throughout New York that are involved with interoperability at the 
state and local level. According to state officials, the governance 
structure limits the state's ability to mandate requirements to local 
governments; therefore, individual counties and cities determine their 
own interoperability requirements and have their own governance 
structure in place for interoperable communications. The state, 
however, determines priority investments and the localities must spend 
grant money on these priority investments. Interoperable communications 
was a priority investment for both grants for fiscal year 2006. 

State Approach: 

The state is currently in the process of deploying a Statewide Wireless 
Network intended to provide an integrated mobile radio communications 
network that links all state agencies and would be available to connect 
participating local agencies (see figure 7). It will be a digital, 
trunked radio system with both voice and data capabilities and will be 
used in day-to-day operations, as well as large scale emergency 
situations. The network is to interconnect radio sites across the state 
through a "backbone network" based on Internet Protocol (IP). The 
network is to operate on the 700 and 800 MHz frequencies, as well as 
VHF frequencies in geographically challenging terrain, such as the 
Adirondack and Catskill Mountains. Users operating on other frequencies 
and with less advanced technology can be connected to the network 
through a gateway. 

Figure 7: The New York Statewide Wireless Network: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis based on New York data. 

[End of figure] 

State agencies are required to be a part of the Statewide Wireless 
Network, but local agencies may join on a volunteer basis. As 
previously mentioned, according to state officials, they are limited in 
their ability to require local agencies to utilize the network. Local 
agencies will have the following three different interoperability 
options: 

* Full system partnership: the state will provide the base 
infrastructure such as radio towers, and the agency will purchase IP-
addressable, digital, trunked radios, as well as any additional 
repeaters to operate on the network. 

* Interface/gateway partnership: allows local agencies to maintain 
their own separate network and provides a connecting gateway between a 
local agency's dispatch console and the network. 

* Shared communication system infrastructure: states and localities 
both use the same towers for their separate systems, but there is no 
mechanism for patching communications between the state and local 
systems. 

New York is implementing the Statewide Wireless Network in several 
phases and expects full implementation to be completed in September 
2010. 

Even though joining this state network is free, localities need to buy 
digital, trunked, and IP-addressable radios to participate directly, 
and additional infrastructure such as repeaters to get complete 
coverage in urban areas and buildings. 

Local Approach: 

Throughout the state of New York, many different communications systems 
exist. Each area has developed its own methods aimed at improving 
interoperability. Additionally, localities generally do not include the 
Statewide Wireless Network as part of their local approach to improving 
interoperable communications. As of December 2006, one agency in New 
York City and only 7 of the 62 counties in New York have partnered with 
the network to be full system users. Twenty-five counties have agreed 
to connect through a gateway. 

* In the New York City UASI area, the police department maintains six 
channels for citywide interoperability. Any agency can use these 
channels by signing a memorandum of understanding and ensuring that 
they meet the necessary technical requirements. Additional 
interoperability strategies used by the New York City UASI include 
using a federal interoperability channel and utilizing and deploying 
mobile patching devices to connect disparate systems at an incident 
site. In addition, New York City is working to develop the City-wide 
Mobile Wireless Network, which is intended to provide police and fire 
first responders with high-speed data access to support large file 
transfers, including federal and state anticrime and antiterrorism 
databases, fingerprints, and maps. Further, the city has implemented a 
regional wide-area interoperability system that is New York City's 
primary interoperability network for first responders in the city. It 
is currently being expanded to include first responders in Nassau, 
Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, and parts of New Jersey. 

* Agencies in Albany County typically interoperate by programming the 
frequencies of other agencies into their radios, including agencies in 
neighboring counties. The county also has a patching mechanism that can 
connect different radio networks during an emergency. To improve its 
interoperability and connect the county to neighboring counties, Albany 
County is currently in the process of developing a countywide system. 
This system will use gateways to connect existing systems that operate 
on different frequency bands and allow all public safety responders 
within the county to communicate with any other responder in Albany 
County regardless of the radio system or technology used. Albany is 
also currently developing a fiber optic system that will connect all 12 
Public Safety Access Points in the county. 

* Onondaga County relies on dispatchers to connect first responders. 
All dispatching for Onondaga County is centralized at the county's 911 
call center. To improve its interoperability, Onondaga County is 
currently working to implement a countywide digital system that will 
connect all county agencies. 

Oregon: 

Oregon is currently in the process of planning a statewide system to 
connect all state agencies and provide a means for local agencies to be 
patched to users on the statewide system. Localities continue to 
develop and maintain their own communication systems and 
interoperability solutions. According to DHS, Oregon has received $53.4 
million from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 in grant funding 
to improve interoperable communications. 

Governance: 

Oregon has a State Interoperability Executive Council to centrally 
manage Oregon's interoperable communications. This body is composed of 
state and local representatives. This committee requires that each 
county prepare a communications plan. Additionally, the committee is in 
the process of developing a statewide interoperable communications plan 
that incorporates all the county plans. 

State Approach: 

Most state agencies are currently using VHF and UHF analog, 
conventional radio systems, which are in some cases 30 years old and in 
need of major repairs and upgrades. Oregon state agencies experience 
significant coverage gaps in their existing communications systems due 
to a lack of transmission towers. Additionally, these state systems are 
not always interoperable with federal or local systems. 

In the absence of shared radio systems among federal, state, and local 
first responder agencies, Oregon's state agencies use various 
alternative approaches to establish interoperable communications with 
agencies they work with on a regular basis, such as using a dispatcher 
or patching devices to establish connections between disparate radio 
systems, and lending radios to first responders from other agencies. 

Due to the deteriorating status of the Oregon's state agencies' 
communication systems, State Interoperability Executive Council 
officials have been working with contractors to develop a concept for a 
new state system. The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is to be 
a Project 25, trunked, digital radio network that will rely on an IP 
interface to interoperate with state agencies' subsystems. Plans for 
the interoperability network are to allow the majority of state 
agencies to operate on a unified trunked system while supporting 
conventional operations where and when required. These officials plan 
to issue a contract to a vendor by October 2007 and implement the first 
phase of the network by October 2009. 

The Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network is intended to be the 
primary system for state agencies; local agencies will be expected to 
maintain their existing systems as their primary systems and use the 
network as their secondary system. A patching mechanism would be 
established to allow local agencies to be connected to state agencies, 
as well as allow them to be connected to other local agencies that they 
do not already have interoperability. Figure 8 is a depiction of the 
interoperability network concept as currently envisioned. 

Figure 8: Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network System Overview: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source; GAO analysis based on Oregon data. 

[End of figure] 

Local Approach: 

Local agencies use a wide range of radio frequencies and communication 
technologies and have various strategies and solutions to improving 
interoperability. In particular, Marion County uses analog UHF and VHF 
systems; and trunked, as well as conventional radios. Officials stated 
that they have limited interoperability with state and federal agencies 
and that they, therefore, maintain a cache of 30 radios available to 
share, when needed. Additionally, they can use a mobile command unit 
that can be deployed to any area and contains another cache of radios. 

In the Portland UASI, four of the five counties use 800 MHz, analog, 
trunked radio systems that provide direct interoperability among those 
four counties. The fifth county is on a separate VHF system. They have 
installed equipment to improve the interoperability with this fifth 
county. Additionally, to provide interoperability with the fifth county 
and other agencies outside the UASI area, the officials use mechanisms 
such as a mobile trailer to patch calls and loan radios from its cache 
of radios. 

Jackson County agencies generally use conventional, VHF, analog radio 
systems. Officials indicated that although two of the cities within the 
county are digitally capable, their first responders use the analog 
mode due to the fact that many of their neighboring jurisdictions do 
not have digital radios. In order to interoperate with jurisdictions on 
different systems, they use common radio channels, patching mechanisms, 
as well as a mobile command vehicle that is equipped with a cache of 
radios in different frequencies and a patching device. In addition, 
Jackson County and Josephine County are developing a communications 
system that connects the two counties. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

The Deputy Secretary Of Commerce: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

March 15, 2007: 

Ms. Linda Koontz: 
Director: 
Information Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

Thank you for providing a copy of the GAO's draft report entitled 
"First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 
Interoperability" (GAO-07-301). 

I commend you on the comprehensive nature of your report. The 
Department of Commerce takes its role in improving the technology that 
supports all first responders very seriously. In light of this, I 
enclose comments that will assist you in clearly interpreting the 
information provided by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and the National Telecommunication and Information 
Administration. These comments include specific concerns that could 
lead to an inaccurate perception of the current state of 
interoperability. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. I 
applaud your efforts to improve programs supporting our Nation's first 
responders. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David A. Sampson: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

March 22, 2007: 

Ms. Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-07-301, First Responders: Much Work Remains to 
Improve Communications Interoperability (GAO Job Code 310756): 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes five recommendations. We 
agree with two recommendations, disagree with one recommendation, and 
will take two others under advisement. 

We agree that a great deal of work remains before our Nation's 
emergency responders have seamless communications interoperability. 
However, there are several areas in the report that need to be 
corrected in order to provide an accurate picture of the current state 
of efforts to improve interoperability. We have provided specific 
lengthy comments with examples about inaccurate statements in the draft 
report as technical comments under separate cover and they are 
incorporated by reference. We highlight some of the comments herein. 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security (1) assess how 
states' grant requests support their statewide communications plans and 
include the assessment as a factor in making DHS grant allocation 
decisions and (2) plan for a new full-scale exercise for UASI [Urban 
Area Security Initiative] areas that provides local officials with 
sufficient time to develop and implement exercises to validate the 
robustness and effectiveness of their tactical interoperable 
communications plans. 

We will take these recommendations under advisement. Officials in what 
is now known as our Preparedness Directorate will comment on these 
recommendations when we provide a sixty day response to the 
recommendations following issuance of your report. Aspects of 
communications interoperability will transfer at the end of the month 
to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) [now called 
the Preparedness Directorate]. Other changes at the Department include 
standing up the Office of Emergency Communication within NPPD's Cyber 
Security and Telecommunications. Programmatic elements of SAFECOM will 
be included in the Office of Emergency Communications. 

GAO also recommends that DHS develop and implement a program plan for 
SAFECOM and other Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) 
interoperability programs that include goals focused on improving 
interoperability among all levels of government. We agree with the 
intent of the recommendation and have been addressing it. We disagree 
with the implication that action has not been taken. The program plan 
for SAFECOM is in development as the program transitions from Science 
and Technology's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to the 
Office of Emergency Communications. 

SAFECOM has always had goals for improving interoperability among 
local, state, tribal, and Federal emergency response agencies. SAFECOM, 
with support from OMB, adopted a strategy based on user needs and 
driven from the bottom-up to meet its mission as an E-Government 
project. Our technical comments include a list of SAFECOM metrics/ 
goals. 

SAFECOM heavily relies on input from local, state, and Federal 
emergency response practitioners. It has developed forums where 
practitioners can define and implement interoperable solutions, 
including its Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council. Among 
the Federal participants on these working groups are representatives 
from the Department of Justice, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal 
Communications Commission, as well as multiple other offices within 
DHS. In addition, the Federal Partnership for Interoperable 
Communications (FPIC) seeks to improve interoperability at the Federal 
level. All FPIC member agencies have aligned to the SAFECOM program. 
Alignment is defined as being in compliance with the P25 standards, a 
suite of eight standards for the manufacturing of interoperable, 
digital, two-way wireless communications products. 

In your fourth recommendation, you state that the DHS include in the 
program plan for SAFECOM and other OEC interoperability programs 
quantifiable performance measures that can be used to determine the 
extent to which each of the goals have been accomplished, and that can 
be used to assess the effectiveness and usefulness of SAFECOM tools, 
assistance, and outreach, and make improvements based on the feedback. 

We agree with the recommendation. In addition to the current 
performance measures that SAFECOM reports to OMB, DHS agrees that it is 
important to establish performance measures that can be used to 
determine the extent to which each of the SAFECOM goals have been 
accomplished. To this end, DHS officials intend to establish 
quantifiable performance measures that can be used to determine the 
extent of accomplishment. The goals should be established by the third 
quarter of 2007. 

We agree that it is important to not only produce tools that aid the 
emergency response community in achieving greater interoperability, but 
also to evaluate the efficacy of those tools. Once finalized and 
implemented, the performance measures will provide feedback that will 
influence the development of future tools in order to better serve the 
program's mission and accomplish its goals. Performance measures and 
methods of collecting data will be consistent with DHS and Federal 
regulations. Further, they will be based on best practices from the 
public and private sectors on measuring the efficacy of free 
publications. 

Fifth, and finally, GAO recommends that the Secretary modify grant 
guidance to provide more flexibility in purchasing communications 
equipment until standards for completed interfaces have been fully 
defined and products have been certified compliant with all aspects of 
the standards. The recommendation suggests that grant guidance 
requirements related to Project 25 (P25) standards be diluted or 
expunged until P25 standards are complete. We disagree with the 
recommendation as it would require that SAFECOM amend its 
interoperability grant guidance by removing language that encourages 
grant recipients to purchase P25-compliant equipment until after the 
entire P25 suite of standards is complete. P25 represents the 
foundation for near-term communications interoperability and can be 
completed in the next 18 months if all parties are committed. 

The recommendation discounts tremendous recent progress with P25, and 
could undermine the final remaining negotiations between the public 
safety community and equipment manufacturers. Our Science and 
Technology Directorate's Command, Control and Interoperability Division 
officials know from the National Interoperability Baseline Survey that 
40 percent of agencies intend to procure new systems within the next 
five years. Muting the P25 language would remove all incentives for 
manufacturers to participate in completing the P25 standards. It would 
also ensure that tens of thousands of communities would invest Federal 
"interoperability" funds in proprietary systems that will never be 
interoperable. Indeed, one of the most frequent requests by public 
safety officials is for standards and comprehensive guidance. 

The GAO draft report also implies that FY 2007 Homeland Security grant 
dollars received by applicants will be spent by local public safety 
agencies in FY 2007, but that is unlikely. States typically receive 
grant funds by the end of the fiscal year for which funding has been 
appropriated. This means these funds will be allocated to localities 
and drive requests for proposals through FY 2009. Therefore, the grant 
guidance serves as additional pressure on the P25 standard stakeholders 
to complete the standard in the next 18 to 24 months. However, even if 
the P25 committee fails to reach its final goal in the 18-to-24 month 
timeframe, new P25 features are being manufactured as they are 
ratified, which continually increases the capacity for interoperability 
among users. 

GAO maintains that compliance assessment cannot begin until P25 
standards development is complete. However, fully completed standards 
are not required for initial compliance assessments. In fact, the 
existing compliance assessment criteria was modeled after a highly 
successful compliance assessment effort conducted by the Army which 
resulted in manufacturers re-tooling their equipment to be as 
interoperable as promised. Standards development and compliance 
assessment have been successfully moving in parallel with each other, 
each influencing and refining the other for the benefit of all parties 
involved. More importantly, technology will continue to evolve, 
requiring continuous updating of the standards. Waiting for a "final" 
standard would prohibit any standards from ever being applied. 

In addition, there are two particular areas of concern in the draft 
report that we urge GAO to address before the report is finalized and 
submitted to Congress: 

1. The need to include information on several additional agencies and 
programs charged with improving Federal interoperability. 

2. The need to clarify SAFECOM's strategy of addressing the 
interoperable communications needs of local, tribal, and state 
interoperability ahead of Federal responders. 

The GAO report examined some communications interoperability programs, 
omitting critical activities being conducted by other major programs, 
particularly other programs focused on interoperability among Federal 
responders. These agencies include the newly created Office of 
Emergency Communications within DHS; the Integrated Wireless Network; 
the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program; and the 
Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications. A complete list 
of agencies involved with interoperable communications is included in 
our technical comments. 

Under law, SAFECOM has a role in Federal interoperable communications 
and is meeting its requirement in three ways: 

1. SAFECOM guidance to states requires the integration of Federal 
responders into their statewide interoperable communications plans. 

2. SAFECOM's Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council 
includes representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department 
of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department 
of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Federal Communications Commission, as well as multiple offices within 
the Department of Homeland Security. 

3. SAFECOM is a member and a regular participant in the FPIC. The FPIC 
consists of 44 Federal entities representing more than 200 
participants. The report appears to recommend that SAFECOM should 
create or maintain a redundant functionality to compete with FPIC 
activities. SAFECOM does not believe that creating more 
interoperability programs will result in more interoperability. 

By examining these other entities and the significant work they have 
accomplished, your report could offer a more complete picture of 
Federal efforts to improve interoperability. 

The second major issue is GAO's view that SAFECOM has mistakenly made 
local, tribal, and state emergency responders its highest priority. In 
2001 the President created the SAFECOM program under the Government to 
Government (G2G) customer segment as part of the Presidential E- 
Government strategy. State and local governments were the primary 
customer of the G2G customer segment, and are therefore SAFECOM's 
primary focus. SAFECOM also maintains that since ninety percent of the 
public safety infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by 
local jurisdictions, the Federal Government can have the greatest 
impact working with local, tribal, and state emergency responders, and 
by integrating those efforts with Federal plans-not by making local and 
state interoperability secondary to Federal requirements. 

In every incident, it is a virtual certainty that a local, tribal, or 
state emergency responder will be the first to arrive on the scene. If 
interoperability does not occur at that level, then no amount of 
Federal interoperability will be able to compensate. Federal responders 
will be there to act primarily as support when possible. For this 
reason, SAFECOM continues to maintain that its prioritization of local, 
tribal, and state emergency responders is the most appropriate course 
of action. The draft report gives the impression that SAFECOM is 
targeting the wrong population despite its Presidential E-government 
mandate. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda Koontz, (202) 512-6240, koontzl@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, John de Ferrari, Assistant 
Director; Neil Doherty; Richard Hung; Tom Mills; Shannin O'Neill; Karen 
Talley; Amos Tevelow; and Jayne Wilson made major contributions to this 
report. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state 
capital region. 

[2] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 
No. 108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004. 

[3] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 
The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington, D.C: 2004), 322-3. 

[4] For more information on the need for better frequency planning and 
coordination, see GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder 
Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 
2004). 

[5] Voice over Internet Protocol, also called VoIP, is the routing of 
voice conversations over the Internet or any other Internet Protocol 
network. 

[6] GAO-04-740. 

[7] GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications 
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 16, 2004). 

[8] GAO-04-494. 

[9] Each year the number of urban areas designated as a UASI area 
changes. In 2005, DHS designated 43 UASI areas, and in 2006 DHS reduced 
the number of UASI areas to 35 (11 areas that had previously 
participated in the program but did not fall within in the top 35 urban 
areas in the 2006 risk analysis were eligible to apply for UASI funding 
for one additional grant cycle to help sustain ongoing projects). In 
2007, 45 areas were designated as UASI areas. 

[10] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1433- 
35, Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1801 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 571). 

[11] The American National Standards Institute coordinates and oversees 
the development and use of voluntary standards in the United States and 
participates in accrediting programs that assess conformance to 
standards. 

[12] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1438 
Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1804 of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, 6 U.S.C. 574). 

[13] GAO-04-740. 

[14] The committee was established by the Federal Communications 
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration to evaluate the wireless communications needs of 
federal, state, and local public safety agencies. 

[15] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. 
No. 109-295, Title VI, Subtitle D, section 671, 120 Stat. 1355, 1435- 
36, Oct. 4, 2006 (enacting new section 1802 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 572). 

[16] The 25 e-government initiatives were established by the Office of 
Management and Budget to simplify and unify agency work processes and 
information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable 
information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being 
collected many times. 

[17] GAO-04-494. 

[18] The program also had a goal of increasing the development and 
adoption of standards. Standards development is discussed in a separate 
section below. 

[19] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 
No. 108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004. 

[20] Narrowband refers to the method of gaining more channels (and 
hence more capacity) by splitting channels into channels that are 
narrower in bandwidth. 

[21] Encryption is the process of transforming ordinary data (commonly 
referred to as plaintext) into code form (ciphertext) using a special 
value known as a key and a mathematical process called an algorithm. 
Cryptographic algorithms are designed to produce ciphertext that is 
unintelligible to unauthorized users. Decryption of ciphertext is 
possible by using the proper key. 

[22] We visited 15 locations. However, Franklin County, Kentucky, did 
not indicate which tools they use, and 4 localities were unfamiliar 
with the SAFECOM's Statement of Requirements and its Public Safety 
Architecture Framework. 

[23] SAFECOM officials have recently added a sixth performance measure 
that is intended to measure "percent of federal agencies aligning to 
the SAFECOM program," however the measure does not reflect federal 
agency alignment to the SAFECOM program. Instead, it attempts to 
measure federal agencies' compliance with Project 25 standards. 

[24] H.R. Rep. No. 108-792, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (2004) at 755. 

[25] GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, 
but Faces Considerable Challenges, GAO-06-392 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
24, 2006). 

[26] NIST is developing a process for determining manufacturers' 
laboratories as being "approved." 

[27] We were unable to meet with local officials from Florida's state 
capital region. 

[28] GAO-04-740. 

[29] DHS's grant funding figures for interoperable communications 
includes funding from each of the relevant grant programs within the 
Office of Grants and Training, including the State Homeland Security 
Program and the UASI program. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: