This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-494 
entitled 'Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications 
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration' which was released on April 16, 
2004.

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters:

April 2004:

PROJECT SAFECOM:

Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger 
Collaboration:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494]: 

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-494, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

One of the five priorities in the President’s Management Agenda is the 
expansion of electronic government (e–government)—the use of Internet 
applications to enhance access to and delivery of government 
information and services. Project SAFECOM is one of the 25 initiatives 
sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement 
this agenda. Managed by the Department of Homeland Security, the 
project’s goal is to achieve interoperability among emergency-response 
communications at all levels of government, while at the same time 
realizing cost savings. GAO assessed the government’s progress in 
implementing Project SAFECOM.

What GAO Found:

While its overall objective of achieving communications 
interoperability among emergency response entities at all levels of 
government is a challenging task that will take many years to fully 
accomplish, Project SAFECOM, in its 2-year history, has made very 
limited progress in addressing this objective. OMB’s e–government 
objectives of improving operating efficiency and achieving budgetary 
savings within federal programs have also been largely stymied.

Two major factors have contributed to the project’s limited progress: 
(1) lack of consistent executive commitment and support, and (2) an 
inadequate level of interagency collaboration. In its 2 1/2-year 
history, Project SAFECOM has had four different management teams in 
three different agencies (see figure). In recent months, the current 
project team has pursued various near-term activities that are intended 
to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, including 
establishing a governance structure that emphasizes collaboration with 
stakeholders and developing guidance for making grants that can be used 
to encourage public safety agencies to plan for interoperability. 
However, it has not yet reached written agreements with several of its 
major stakeholders on their roles in the project or established a 
stable funding mechanism. Until these shortcomings are addressed, the 
ability of Project SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved 
interoperability and better response to emergencies will remain in 
doubt.

Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends:

To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications 
among first responders at all levels of government, GAO recommends that 
the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for 
Science and Technology to complete agreements with the project’s 
federal and nonfederal stakeholders that define how they will 
contribute to SAFECOM and measure program progress. Commenting on a 
draft of this report, the department provided information about the 
project’s recent activities and noted that draft agreements had been 
sent to all of the project’s federal funding partners.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in Collaboration Have Hampered 
SAFECOM's Progress: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix:

Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Table: 

Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between Federal Agencies and 
Project SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable Communications among 
Emergency Response Officials Is Challenging: 

Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes: 

Abbreviations: 

AGILE: Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:

GAO: General Accounting Office:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

PSWN: Public Safety Wireless Network:

Letter April 16, 2004:

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Adam H. Putnam: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Christopher Shays: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

As you know, the President has identified the expansion of e-
government[Footnote 1] as one of five priorities in his management 
agenda; accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
sponsored 25 initiatives to implement this agenda. This report 
specifically reviews the progress made to date on one of these 
initiatives, Project SAFECOM, which has an overall objective of 
achieving national wireless communications interoperability[Footnote 
2] among first responders and public safety systems at all levels of 
government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently the 
federal managing partner for this project.

The 25 e-government initiatives sponsored by OMB, including Project 
SAFECOM, were originally chosen on the basis of their (1) likelihood of 
being deployed within 18 to 24 months, (2) value to citizens, and (3) 
potential to improve federal agency efficiency. By achieving 
interoperable public safety communications systems at all levels of 
government, Project SAFECOM was intended to not only improve public 
services in emergencies but also to realize cost savings.

Achieving communications interoperability among emergency personnel is 
a complex and challenging task involving many different governmental 
and nongovernmental entities and a range of inter-related technical 
issues, such as how the communications spectrum is managed and how 
local governments buy and upgrade equipment.[Footnote 3] Given the 
importance of addressing this challenge, you requested that we assess 
the progress of the federal government in implementing Project SAFECOM. 
To achieve this objective, we reviewed documents outlining the 
program's goals, plans, and achievements; its management structure and 
objectives; its collaboration and funding strategy; and its selection 
as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored electronic government initiatives. We 
identified documented activities and achievements directly associated 
with Project SAFECOM and assessed the extent to which they contributed 
to fulfillment of the project's original objectives. We also discussed 
the program's management with current and former program managers. Our 
work was conducted at DHS in Washington, D.C., from December 2003 
through March 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress 
in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 
interoperability among entities at all levels of government. In 
addition, although the project was originally expected to realize 
billions of dollars in federal budgetary savings by improving agency 
efficiency, program officials no longer expect it to produce such 
savings.

Two major factors have contributed to the project's limited progress. 
First, Project SAFECOM has not received consistent executive commitment 
and support, as evidenced by the fact that it has been assigned to 
three different agencies and has had four management teams in its 2 1/
2-year history. Second, the project has not achieved the level of 
collaboration necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of 
this type. In recent months, the current project team has pursued 
various near-term activities that are intended to lay the groundwork 
for future interoperability, including establishing a governance 
structure that emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and 
developing grant guidance for use with awards to public safety agencies 
that encourage planning for interoperability. However, it has not yet 
reached written agreements with several of its major stakeholders on 
their roles in the project or established a stable funding mechanism. 
Until these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of Project SAFECOM 
to deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and better 
response to emergencies will remain in question.

To enhance the ability of DHS to effectively collaborate with other 
agencies involved with SAFECOM, and to better ensure that the project 
receives stable funding, we are recommending that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security take steps to complete written participation and 
funding agreements with organizations representing all of the project's 
stakeholders. Commenting on a draft of this report, DHS's GAO liaison 
provided additional information about SAFECOM's activities since May 
2003. The DHS official also noted activities under way that could 
partially address our recommendation. However, until DHS reaches 
agreements with all of SAFECOM's stakeholders, including nonfunding 
federal partners and state and local partners, its ability to achieve 
its objectives will continue to be hampered.

Background:

One of the key provisions of the President's Management Agenda, 
released in 2001, is the expansion of electronic government. To 
implement this provision, OMB sought to identify potential projects 
that could be implemented to address the issue of multiple federal 
agencies' performing similar tasks that could be consolidated through 
e-government processes and technology. To accomplish this, OMB 
established a team called the E-Government Task Force, which analyzed 
the federal bureaucracy and identified areas of significant overlap and 
redundancy in how federal agencies provide services to the public. The 
task force noted that multiple agencies were conducting redundant 
operations within 30 major functions and business lines in the 
executive branch. For example, the task force found that 10 of the 30 
federal agencies it studied had ongoing activities in the National 
Security and Defense line of business, while 13 of the 30 agencies had 
ongoing activities related to Disaster Preparation and Response 
Management.

To address such redundancies, the task force evaluated a variety of 
potential projects, focusing on collaborative opportunities to 
integrate IT operations and simplify processes within lines of business 
across agencies and around citizen needs. Twenty-five projects were 
selected to lead the federal government's drive toward e-government 
transformation and enhanced service delivery.[Footnote 4] In its e-
government strategy, published in February 2002,[Footnote 5] OMB 
established a portfolio management structure to help oversee and guide 
the selected initiatives. The five portfolios in this structure are 
"government to citizen," "government to business," "government to 
government," "internal efficiency and effectiveness," and "cross-
cutting." For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency as the 
managing partner responsible for leading the initiative, and also 
assigned other federal agencies as partners in carrying out the 
initiative.[Footnote 6] OMB initially approved Project SAFECOM as an e-
government initiative in October 2001. SAFECOM falls within the 
government-to-government portfolio, due to its focus on accelerating 
the implementation of interoperable public safety communications at all 
levels of government.

As described in its 2002 e-government report, OMB planned for SAFECOM 
to address critical shortcomings in efforts by public safety agencies 
to achieve interoperability and eliminate redundant wireless 
communications networks. OMB also stated that the project was expected 
to save lives and lead to better-managed disaster response, as well as 
result in billions of dollars in budget savings from "right-sized" 
federal communications networks and links to state networks.[Footnote 
7]

Lack of Interoperable Communications Hampers Emergency Response:

In order to effectively carry out their normal duties and respond to 
extraordinary events such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism, 
public safety agencies need the ability to communicate with those from 
other disciplines and jurisdictions. However, the wireless 
communications used today by many police officers, firefighters, 
emergency medical personnel, and other public safety agencies do not 
provide such capability, which hinders their ability to respond. 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 while trying to communicate with each 
other.[Footnote 8]

Historically, the ability of first responders to communicate with those 
from other disciplines and jurisdictions has been significantly 
hampered because they often use different and incompatible radio 
systems operating on different frequencies of the radio spectrum. In 
February 2003, the National Task Force on Interoperability[Footnote 9] 
estimated the number of emergency response officials in the United 
States--also called first-responders--at about 2.5 million, working for 
50,000 different agencies, such as law enforcement organizations, fire 
departments, and emergency medical services. Response to an emergency 
may involve any or all of these disciplines, as well as may additional 
personnel from the transportation, natural resources, or public utility 
sectors.

A complex array of challenges affects the government's ability to 
address the emergency communications interoperability problem. In 
addition to the vast number of distinct governmental entities involved, 
the National Task Force on Interoperability identified a variety of 
additional barriers, including the fragmentation and limited 
availability of radio communications spectrum for dedicated use by 
emergency personnel, incompatible and aging communications equipment, 
limited equipment standards within the public safety community, and the 
lack of appropriate life-cycle funding strategies.[Footnote 10] These 
barriers have been long-standing, and fully overcoming them will not be 
accomplished easily or quickly. Figure 1 summarizes the challenge of 
achieving seamlessly interoperable communications among the many 
personnel and organizations responding to an emergency.

Figure 1: Achieving Seamlessly Interoperable Communications among 
Emergency Response Officials Is Challenging:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In some cases, first responders have resorted to stopgap measures to 
overcome communications problems. For example, some may swap radios 
with another agency at the scene of an emergency, others may relay 
messages through a common communications center, and still others may 
employ messengers to physically carry information from one group of 
responders to another. However, these measures have not always been 
adequate. The National Task Force on Interoperability identified 
several cases where the inability to communicate across agencies and 
jurisdictions in emergency situations was a factor in the loss of lives 
or delayed emergency response.

Over the last decade, several federal programs have been established to 
address various aspects of public safety communications and 
interoperability. Among these was the Public Safety Wireless Network 
(PSWN) program--originally developed as a joint undertaking of the 
departments of Justice and the Treasury. PSWN's focus was to promote 
state and local interoperability by establishing a technical resource 
center, collecting and analyzing data related to the operational 
environment of public safety communications, and initiating pilot 
projects to test and refine interoperable technology. Another similar 
initiative is the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law 
Enforcement (AGILE) program, which is run by the Department of 
Justice's National Institute of Justice. AGILE was created to 
coordinate interoperability research within the Department of Justice 
and with other agencies and levels of government. AGILE has four main 
activities: (1) supporting research and development, (2) testing and 
evaluating pilot technologies, (3) developing standards, and (4) 
educating end users and policymakers.[Footnote 11]

With roughly 100 agencies that use radio communications in law 
enforcement activities, the federal government also has a need for 
interoperable communications, both internally among its own departments 
and agencies and with state and local entities. This need has grown 
since the attacks of September 11, 2001, which blurred the distinctions 
between public safety and national security, and has placed federal 
entities such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret 
Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard into broader public safety roles. As 
a result, federal public safety personnel have an increased need to be 
able to communicate directly with one another and with their state and 
local counterparts.

Leadership Changes and Shortcomings in Collaboration Have Hampered 
SAFECOM's Progress:

After more than 2 years, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress 
in addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 
interoperability among entities at all levels of government. SAFECOM's 
lack of progress has prevented it from achieving the benefits that were 
expected of it as one of the 25 OMB-sponsored e-government initiatives, 
including improving government efficiency and realizing budgetary 
savings. Two factors have contributed significantly to the project's 
limited results. First, there has been a lack of sustained executive 
leadership, as evidenced by multiple shifts in program responsibility 
and management staff. Second, the project has not achieved the level of 
collaboration necessary for a complex cross-government initiative of 
this type. In recent months, the current project team has pursued 
various near-term activities that are intended to lay the groundwork 
for future interoperability, including establishing a governance 
structure that emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and 
developing grant guidance for use with awards to public safety agencies 
that encourage planning for interoperability. However, it has not yet 
reached written agreements with several of its major stakeholders on 
their roles in the project or established a stable funding mechanism. 
Until these weaknesses are addressed, SAFECOM's ability to achieve its 
ultimate goal of improving interoperable communications will remain in 
doubt.

SAFECOM Has Fulfilled Neither Its Program Goals nor the Overall E-
Government Objectives:

When the e-government initiative was launched in 2002, OMB identified 
achieving public safety interoperability and reducing redundant 
wireless communications infrastructures as the goal for Project 
SAFECOM. Specifically, SAFECOM was to:

* achieve federal-to-federal interoperability throughout the nation,

* achieve federal-to-state/local interoperability throughout the 
nation, and:

* achieve state/local interoperability throughout the nation.

As of March 2004, Project SAFECOM has made very limited progress in 
addressing its overall objective of achieving communications 
interoperability among entities at all levels of government. 
Specifically, project officials could provide no specific examples of 
cases where interoperability had been achieved as a direct result of 
SAFECOM activities. Furthermore, program officials now estimate that a 
minimum level of interoperability will not occur until 2008, and full 
interoperability will not occur until 15 years later, in 2023.

OMB expected SAFECOM's value to citizens to include saved lives and 
better managed disaster response; however, because of the program's 
limited progress, these benefits have not yet been achieved. OMB also 
forecasted that a reduction in the number of communications devices and 
their associated maintenance and training would result in cost savings, 
including "billions" in federal savings. Project officials are 
currently conducting a study to estimate potential federal savings, 
such as savings from reducing equipment purchases. However, according 
to the program manager, federal savings in the billions of dollars are 
not likely. He added, however, that state and local agencies could 
realize significant savings if they could rely on Project SAFECOM to 
conduct consolidated testing of equipment for compliance with 
interoperability standards. Finally, on the issue of federal agency 
efficiency, the project has achieved mixed results. Although SAFECOM 
absorbed the projects and functions of PSWN, it has not consolidated 
the functions of Project AGILE, despite the similarities between the 
two programs' activities. According to SAFECOM's manager, the project 
lacks the authority to consolidate additional programs.

Lack of Sustained Leadership Has Hampered SAFECOM's Progress:

As we have identified in previous work, successful organizations foster 
a committed leadership team and plan for smooth staff 
transitions.[Footnote 12] The transition to modern management requires 
sustained, committed leadership on the part of agency executives and 
managers. As in the case with well-run commercial entities, strong 
leadership and sound management are central to the effective 
implementation of public-sector policies or programs, especially 
transformational programs such as the OMB-sponsored e-government 
initiatives.

Instead of sustained management attention, SAFECOM has experienced 
frequent changes in management, which have hampered its progress. OMB 
originally designated the Department of the Treasury, which was already 
involved in overseeing PSWN, as the project's managing partner. As 
originally conceived, SAFECOM would build on PSWN's efforts to achieve 
interoperability among state and local agencies by building an 
interoperable federal communications network. However, in May 2002, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had an emergency-
response mission more closely aligned with SAFECOM's goals, was 
designated managing partner. At that time, project staff focused their 
efforts on securing funding and beginning outreach to stakeholders such 
as the AGILE program and associations representing local emergency 
agencies. By September 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
had replaced its SAFECOM management team and shifted its implementation 
strategy to focus on helping first responders make short-term 
improvements in interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration 
projects and research. At that time, development of an interoperable 
federal first-responder communications system was seen as a long-term 
goal.

Following the establishment of DHS,[Footnote 13] in May 2003, the 
project was taken out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 
assigned to the department's new Science and Technology Directorate 
because of a perceived need to incorporate more technical expertise. At 
that time, the project was assigned to a fourth management team. Figure 
2 summarizes the major management changes that have occurred throughout 
Project SAFECOM's history.

Figure 2: Time Line of Major Project SAFECOM Management Changes:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

This lack of sustained, committed executive leadership hampered 
SAFECOM's ability to produce results tied to its overall objective. The 
changing of project teams approximately every 6 to 9 months has meant 
that much of the effort spent on the project has been made repeatedly 
to establish administrative structures, develop program plans, and 
obtain stakeholder input and support. Additionally, according to the 
project manager of PSWN, the changes in leadership have led to 
skepticism among some of the project's stakeholders that the project's 
goals can be met.

Inadequate Collaboration Has Also Hampered Progress, Although Recent 
Actions May Promote Success in the Future:

The ability of Project SAFECOM to meet its overall objective has also 
been hampered by inadequate collaboration with the project's 
stakeholders. As an umbrella program meant to coordinate efforts by 
various federal, state, and local agencies to achieve interoperability, 
SAFECOM's success relies on cross-agency collaboration. As we have 
previously reported, cross-organizational initiatives such as this 
require several conditions to be successful, including: (1) a 
collaborative management structure; (2) clear agreements among 
participants on purpose, outcomes, and performance measures; (3) shared 
contribution of resources; and (4) a common set of operating 
standards.[Footnote 14]

While the project's current management team has made progress in 
developing a collaborative management structure, SAFECOM does not yet 
have other necessary structures or agreements in place. Its previous 
management teams worked on creating a collaborative management 
structure by, for example, seeking input from stakeholders and drafting 
a memorandum of understanding among the departments of Homeland 
Security, Justice, and the Treasury, but these activities were not 
completed at the time of the transition to DHS.

Since taking control of the project in May 2003, Project SAFECOM has 
pursued a number of activities that stress collaboration and are 
intended to lay the groundwork for future interoperability, according 
to its current manager. Specifically, DHS established a governance 
structure for the project in November 2003 that includes executive and 
advisory committees to formalize collaboration with stakeholders and 
provides a forum for significant input on goals and priorities by 
federal agencies and state and local representatives. The department 
has also conducted several planning conferences meant to identify 
project stakeholders to reach agreements with them on the program's 
purpose and intended outcomes. One such conference, in December 2003, 
provided an opportunity for stakeholders to modify program goals and 
the tasks planned to address them. The program manager also cited a 
statement of support by several organizations representing local first 
responders as evidence that the current structure is achieving 
effective collaboration. In addition, project officials are working 
with the Commerce Department to catalog all existing federal agencies 
that use public safety communications systems and networks.

Further, program officials noted that the SAFECOM project developed 
grant guidance that promotes interoperability by requiring public 
safety agencies to describe specific plans for achieving improved 
interoperability when applying for grants that fund communications 
equipment. This guidance represents a positive step, but it does not 
provide public safety agencies with complete specifications for 
achieving interoperability. Specifically, the guidance strongly 
encourages applicants to ensure that purchased equipment complies with 
a technical standard for interoperable communications equipment that 
has not yet been finalized and that, according to program officials, 
addresses only part of the interoperability problem. This guidance has 
already been incorporated into grants awarded by the Department of 
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.

However, Project SAFECOM has not yet fulfilled other conditions 
necessary for successful cross-government collaboration. First, 
project officials have not signed memorandums of agreement with all of 
the project's stakeholders. As shown in table 1, agreements were 
completed on funding or program participation with five agencies in 
fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 15] However, DHS did not reach a 2003 
agreement with the Department of the Interior or the Department of 
Justice, both agencies designated as funding partners. According to the 
SAFECOM program manager, the Department of the Interior has not fully 
determined the extent of its expected participation in the program, and 
the Department of Justice had to delay its agreement until it received 
approval to reprogram the necessary funds. Justice has reached an 
agreement with DHS for fiscal year 2004, but as of March 2004, none of 
the other funding partners have signed agreements covering the current 
year. In addition, although other federal agencies and the 
organizations representing state and local stakeholders are represented 
in SAFECOM's governing structure and some have expressed support for 
the program, none has reached an agreement with DHS that commits it to 
provide nonfinancial assistance to the project. Finally, those 
agreements that were in place did not address key program parameters, 
such as specific program outcomes or performance measures. While the 
program's stakeholders agreed to a broad set of goals and expected 
outcomes at the December planning meeting, as of March 2004, there was 
no agreement on performance measures for them. According to the program 
manager, new performance measures were under development.

Table 1: Status of Agreements Reached between Federal Agencies and 
Project SAFECOM in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Type of agreement: Funding and program participation; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2003.

Agency: Department of Defense; 
Type of agreement: Funding and program participation; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2003.

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Type of agreement: Funding only; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2003.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Type of agreement: Funding and program participation; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2003.

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Type of agreement: Funding and program participation; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2004.

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Type of agreement: None completed; 
Period of agreement: [Empty].

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Type of agreement: Funding only; 
Period of agreement: Fiscal year 2003.

Source: DHS.

[End of table]

Second, while effective collaboration requires the sharing of 
resources, DHS had not received all of the funding it planned to 
receive from its federal partners. During fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM 
received only about $17 million of the $34.9 million in funding OMB 
allocated to it from these funding partners. About $1.4 million of that 
$17 million was not received until late September 2003, when only a 
week remained in the fiscal year. According to program officials, these 
funding shortfalls and delays resulted in the program's having to delay 
some of the tasks it had intended to complete, such as identifying the 
project's major milestones.

Finally, although DHS has not yet developed a common set of operating 
standards for SAFECOM, efforts to identify technical standards are 
underway, according to program officials. For example, program 
officials from SAFECOM and AGILE plan to accelerate the development of 
an incomplete standard for interoperable communications equipment that 
is cited in SAFECOM's grants guidance. Program officials are also 
developing a document describing the requirements for public safety 
communications interoperability, which is intended to form the basis 
for future technical development efforts. SAFECOM also is supporting 
several demonstration projects and vendor presentations to publicize 
currently available interoperable systems.

The absence of many aspects of successful collaboration could hamper 
SAFECOM officials' ability to achieve the program's goals. For example, 
the lack of written agreements with some stakeholders raises concerns 
about the extent to which those agencies are willing to contribute to 
the program's success. Also, until performance measures and technical 
standards are finalized and implemented, it will be difficult to 
determine the extent of any progress. Should such difficulties continue 
to hamper the program's progress in fulfilling its overall goals, 
solutions to the problems of public safety interoperability will be 
further delayed.

Conclusions:

While the lack of rapid progress in improving interoperable 
communications among first responders may be understandable, 
considering the complexity of the issues and the number of entities 
involved, federal efforts to address the issue as an e-government 
initiative have been unnecessarily delayed by management instability 
and weaknesses in collaboration. Since taking over management of the 
project in May 2003, DHS has shown greater executive commitment to the 
project than had previously been demonstrated. The agency has 
determined that a long-term, intergovernmental effort will be needed to 
achieve the program's overall goal of improving emergency response 
through broadly interoperable first-responder communications systems, 
and it has taken steps to lay the groundwork for this by creating a 
governance structure allowing for significant stakeholder input on 
program management. However, DHS has made less progress in establishing 
written agreements with other government agencies on responsibilities 
and resource commitments. The DHS effort could experience difficulties 
if it does not reach such agreements, which have proven essential to 
the success of other similarly complex, cross-agency programs.

Recommendation for Executive Action:

To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications 
among emergency personnel from federal, state, local, and tribal 
agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct 
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written 
agreements with the project's identified stakeholders, including 
federal agencies and organizations representing state and local 
governments. These agreements should define the responsibilities and 
resource commitments that each of those organizations will assume and 
include specific provisions that measure program performance.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in 
appendix I, the Department of Homeland Security's GAO liaison agreed 
that the lack of interoperable communications hampers emergency 
response. The official also provided additional information about 
activities undertaken by the current program management team since May 
2003, including the implementation of a management structure that 
includes state and local stakeholders, the ongoing development of 
technical standards, and development of a database to track federal 
interoperability efforts. We discuss these activities in our report.

Regarding our draft recommendation, this official indicated that DHS 
has provided draft agreements to SAFECOM's federal funding partners, 
and added that DHS supports the need for further delineation of 
responsibilities and funding in future MOUs. Until DHS reaches specific 
agreements with all of SAFECOM's stakeholders, including nonfunding 
federal partners and state and local partners, its ability to achieve 
its objectives will continue to be hindered.

The official also stated that DHS agrees that performance measures are 
essential for adequate program management, and added that SAFECOM had 
developed a strategic performance management tool. However, DHS did not 
provide any evidence that SAFECOM had determined the specific 
performance measures that will be used to assess progress against its 
goals, or the process for applying them. Until such measures are 
implemented, program managers will be unable to determine the impact of 
their efforts. We also made technical corrections, as appropriate, in 
response to DHS's comments.

We plan to send copies to this report to the Ranking Minority Member, 
House Committee on Government Reform; the Ranking Minority Member, 
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and the Census; and the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee 
on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. In 
addition, we will provide copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
and the Director of OMB. Copies will also be available without charge 
on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

Signed by:

Should you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 
(202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at [Hyperlink, koontzl@gao.gov] 
and [Hyperlink, deferrarij@gao.gov], respectively. Other key 
contributors to this report were Felipe Colón, Jr., Neil Doherty, 
Michael P. Fruitman, Jamie Pressman, and James R. Sweetman, Jr.

Signed by: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues:

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

April 2, 2004:

Norman J. Rabkin:

Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office:

441 G Street, NW 
Washington DC 20548:

Re: GAO Draft Report: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 
Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (310398):

Dear Mr. Rabkin, et al:

On March 19, 2004, the General Accounting Office (GAO) presented the 
Department of Homeland Security with its draft report, Key Cross Agency 
Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-
04-494. As described in the report, GAO was asked to assess the 
progress made by Project SAFECOM in accomplishing its goals and the 
barriers to future progress.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fully agrees with GAO's 
statement that a lack of interoperable communications hampers emergency 
response. Inadequate and unreliable wireless communications have been 
issues plaguing public safety organizations for decades. In many cases, 
agencies have been unable to perform their mission critical duties 
because they were unable to share vital voice or data information via 
radio with other jurisdictions in day-to-day operations and in 
emergency response to incidents including acts of terrorism and natural 
disasters. SAFECOM is the first national initiative created 
specifically to address this problem.

The SAFECOM Program works with existing federal communications 
initiatives and key public safety stakeholders to coordinate the 
development of better technologies and create processes to support the 
cross jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing 
systems and future networks. SAFECOM was established as the umbrella 
program within the federal government to help local, tribal, state, and 
federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through 
more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications, 
which SAFECOM defines as the ability of public safety agencies to talk 
across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio communications systems, 
exchanging voice and/or data with one another on demand, in real time, 
when needed and as authorized.[NOTE 1]

Unlike many other e-Government (e-Gov) initiatives, the solution to the 
problems of public safety communications and communications 
interoperability-short of a major overhaul of how spectrum is allocated 
and managed in this country, technology is implemented, and agency 
budget cycles are coordinated-is not a single nor even a clear set of 
discrete tasks. There are no simple solutions. Instead, the 
identification and orchestration of many programs over time is required 
- coordination being provided for the nation for the first time by the 
SAFECOM program.

SAFECOM has taken a systematic approach towards addressing the problem, 
beginning in May 2003 when the program was transferred to the 
Directorate for Science and Technology (S&T) at DHS.

* Identify the problem, recognizing that it is a simple problem with 
many complex elements. SAFECOM recognizes that before interoperability 
can occur, reliable, mission-critical, agency-specific communications 
are first necessary for public 
safety agencies. SAFECOM subsequently is addressing the intricately 
related issues of public safety communications and communications 
interoperability. SAFECOM also recognizes that more than ninety percent 
of the public safety communications infrastructure is owned and 
operated at the local and state level. Addressing the problems of 
communications interoperability will hence require focus on the local 
and state public safety and government communities. In response to this 
revised focus of the current management team that took over the program 
nine months ago, SAFECOM realized the need to earn the trust and 
participation of the national associations representing local and state 
public safety and government officials. A governance structure was 
hence developed and implemented by SAFECOM to incorporate these local 
and state stakeholders. This governance structure also includes federal 
emergency response providers, and SAFECOM continues to support the 
Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC)[NOTE 2] as 
a means of addressing the unique issues related to federal 
interoperability. Evidence of the success of this strategy can be seen 
by the recent letter of support developed by ten of the major local and 
state public safety associations.

* Work with the leadership of the public safety community to gather 
comprehensive needs and requirements in order to develop appropriate 
approaches to solutions, referred to as work packages. SAFECOM is about 
to release the first ever comprehensive Public Safety Communications 
Statement of Requirements (SoR) outlining what public safety needs to 
effectively communicate in their response to emergencies. This SoR was 
developed in full partnership with the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) and the Department of Justice's 
AGILE Program [NOTE 3] and is the first nationally recognized statement 
of what first responders need to fix interoperability. 

* In partnership with the leadership of the public safety community, 
develop a process by which to systematically attach the problems and 
needs to programmatic solutions. SAFECOM s currently drafting a plan 
for a technical 
architectural framework for public safety communications. The strategy 
for the plan is centered on the development of an architectural 
framework that satisfies the real-world requirements of public safety 
responders. The framework outlines WHAT the overall structured approach 
is for facilitating interoperability. Functional standards then define 
the details of the structure, and indicate HOW the architecture (and 
its components) will operate.

* Identify current initiatives addressing this problem and develop a 
coordination strategy to leverage existing work while decreasing 
unnecessary duplication of efforts. Beginning at the National Summit on 
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability in June 2003, 
SAFECOM, in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and the AGILE Program, developed an extensive database - the 
first ever - on federal programs and national organization efforts 
aimed at improving public safety communications at all levels of 
government. The resulting survey, assessment, and database allow 
SAFECOM to effectively identify and coordinate relevant programs.

* Implement the solutions strategy to develop short-and long-term 
projects to address public safety communications and communications 
interoperability needs. In December 2003, SAFECOM hosted its first 
complete stakeholder strategy meeting in San Diego, California. The 
resulting strategy outlined short-and long-term projects that the 
stakeholders felt were absolutely necessary for SAFECOM to pursue in 
order to improve interoperability. SAFECOM has since obligated 
resources for each of these projects in its budget, but is still 
waiting to receive funding from its federal funding partners.

These accomplishments are just a few examples of the successful steps 
SAFECOM has taken over the course of the last nine months. In addition, 
SAFECOM has reduced unnecessary duplication of effort across federal 
programs through the establishment of the Federal Interagency 
Coordination Council (FICC) for Public Safety Communications 
Interoperability. The FICC specifically addresses standards, technical 
assistance, and funding consistency across programs that support public 
safety communications issues. An example of FICC success can be seen in 
its promulgation of consensus grant guidance. In an effort to 
coordinate the way in which federally appropriated grant funding for 
public safety communications is allocated while maximizing the prospect 
for interoperable communications, SAFECOM developed general grant 
criteria with input from the public safety community in FY2003. In 
partnership with the Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this 
grant guidance outlined eligibility for grants, the purposes for 
which grants could be used, and guidelines for implementing a wireless 
communication system. The consolidated criteria helped to maximize the 
efficiency with which public safety communications related grant 
dollars were allocated and spent. FICC-revised grant guidance will 
again be included in the grant allocation process in FY04, continuing 
to prevent the type of stove-piped communications that have 
historically plagued public safety communications systems.

GAO's Recommendation for Executive Action:

To enhance the ability of Project SAFECOM to improve communications 
among emergency personnel from federal, state, local and tribal 
agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct, 
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to complete written 
agreements with the project's identified stakeholders, including 
federal agencies and organizations representing state and local 
governments. These agreements should define the responsibilities and 
resource commitments that each of those organizations will assume and 
include specific provisions measuring program performance. [NOTE 4] 

Specific DHS Corrective Action to GAO Recommendations:

Written agreements in the form of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) 
have been developed and provided to all of SAFECOM's federal funding 
partner agencies. Specifically, the GAO Report questioned the status of 
an agreement between DHS and the Department of Defense, commenting that 
"DHS officials stated such an agreement was in lace for fiscal year 
2003 but were unable to locate a copy of the agreement." Since the 
drafting of the GAO report, the signed Memorandum of Agreement between 
the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense for fiscal year 203 
has been located. A copy has been provided to GAO.

2. Although these MOUs already define the responsibilities and resource 
commitments that the programs share, DHS supports the recommendation 
for further delineation of responsibilities and funding amounts in 
future MOUs.

SAFECOM, through the establishment of a Federal Funding Partners 
working group that meets quarterly, has developed MOU templates 
outlining specifics that all agencies - not just funding partners - 
need to address. SAFECOM has provided FY 2004 MOUs to all of its 
funding partners and is currently awaiting responses.

3. DHS also agrees that the development of metrics to track SAFECOM's 
progress and successes is essential for adequate program management. To 
this end, SAFECOM has already developed a Balanced Scorecard to serve 
as the program's 
strategic performance management tool. By establishing objectives 
across four perspectives and linking measures to these objectives, the 
Balanced Scorecard will be the instrument by which the program measures 
its success and maintains accountability. Quarterly Strategic Review 
sessions will be held to evaluate the program's progress and to provide 
recommendations based on the measure outcomes. A copy of the Balanced 
Scorecard has been provided to GAO.

Conclusion:

SAFECOM will continue to reach out to its stakeholders to ensure their 
support and dedication to the program. In the past nine months, SAFECOM 
has proven that its stakeholder relationships are key to keeping the 
program focused on the priority issues for promoting increased public 
safety communications and interoperability. Its accomplishments to date 
are a testament to SAFECOM's dedication to its mission and capabilities 
for success. With adequate and consistent resources, DHS believes that 
SAFECOM will continue to be an effective program in addressing 
interoperability while reducing the unnecessary duplication of federal 
efforts and resource expenditure.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report and for your 
continued support of the Department and its critical mission. If you 
have any questions regarding this matter, I am available to meet or 
discuss with you or your staff.

Sincerely,

Signed for: 

Anna F. Dixon 
DHS GAO Liaison:

[End of section]

NOTES: 

[1] This definition of public safety communications interoperability 
differs from that listed in footnote 2 of the GAO report, "Project 
SAFECOM Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires 
Stronger Collaboration.":

[2] FPIC was formerly known as the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless 
Users Group (FLEWUG), and represents the federal communications user 
community.

[3] The SoR is set to be released on March 22, 2004. It was tentatively 
approved by NPSTC on March 10, 2004, pending additional review by the 
Regional Planning Committees. The SoR is considered to be a 
`living document,' that will require additional review as new user 
groups are identified and as technology progresses. The current 
document is version 1.0.

[4] As stated on page 18 of the GAO report. 

[5] AS STATED ON PAGE 15 OF THE GAO REPORT.

(310398):

FOOTNOTES

[1] E-government (electronic government) refers to the use of 
information technology (IT), particularly Web-based Internet 
applications, to enhance the access to and delivery of government 
information and service to citizens, business partners, and employees 
and among agencies at all levels of government.

[2] Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or 
components to exchange information and to use the information that has 
been exchanged.

[3] For a more detailed discussion of the challenges in achieving 
communications interoperability, see U.S. General Accounting Office, 
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 6, 2003).

[4] For a detailed assessment of the selection process, see U.S. 
General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection and 
Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget's 24 Initiatives, 
GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). In 2002, a decision was 
made to separate one initiative into two individual projects, resulting 
in the current count of 25 projects.

[5] Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).

[6] Federal agencies that OMB assigned as partners in the Project 
SAFECOM initiative include the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, 
Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice, and the Treasury.

[7] For an assessment of the overall management and oversight of the 
initiatives, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: 
Success of the Office of Management and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends 
on Effective Management and Oversight, GAO-03-495T (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 13, 2003).

[8] See, for example, the testimony presented at a joint hearing of two 
Subcommittees of the House Committee on Government Reform (National 
Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations and Technology, 
Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census) held on 
November 6, 2003.

[9] The National Task Force on Interoperability--made up of state and 
local officials, public safety officials, and members from 18 national 
associations--met several times in 2002 to discuss emergency 
communications interoperability.

[10] The findings of the National Task Force on Interoperability are 
summarized in Department of Homeland Security, Current Status of 
Government's Response to Interoperability Efforts and SAFECOM Program: 
A Report to the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House 
of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).

[11] In August 2003, PSWN was merged into the SAFECOM project. AGILE 
continues to operate as a program of the Department of Justice.

[12] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: 
Potential Exists for Enhancing Collaboration on Four Initiatives, GAO-
04-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2003).

[13] The Federal Emergency Management Agency became part of the 
Department of Homeland Security in March 2003.

[14] GAO-04-6.

[15] Participation agreements between DHS and the funding partners 
describe the responsibilities of each party. For example, the funding 
partners agreed to attend meetings, provide funding, and coordinate 
SAFECOM activities with their component agencies, while DHS agreed to 
provide periodic reports and exchange information with OMB.

GAO's Mission:

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 

 Voice: (202) 512-6000:

 TDD: (202) 512-2537:

 Fax: (202) 512-6061:

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

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: