Next Generation 911: National 911 Program Could Strengthen Efforts to Assist States

Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies. However, the nation's legacy 911 system relies on aging infrastructure that is not designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a result, states and localities are upgrading to NG911, which offers improved capabilities, such as the ability to process images, audio files, and video. While deploying NG911 is the responsibility of state and local entities, federal agencies also support implementation, led by NHTSA's National 911 Program, which facilitates collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 stakeholders.

GAO was asked to review NG911 implementation nationwide. This report examines: (1) state and local progress and challenges in implementing NG911 and (2) federal actions to address challenges and planned next steps. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and federal agency reports and plans. GAO also analyzed NHTSA's survey data on state 911 implementation for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were available, and interviewed federal officials, state and local officials from nine states (selected to represent different regions and various phases of NG911 implementation), and officials from industry and advocacy groups.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National 911 Program's most recent national survey on Next Generation 911 (NG911) implementation indicated that about half of states were in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015, but that state and local progress varied. Specifically, 10 states reported that all 911 authorities in their state processed calls using NG911 systems; however, 18 states reported having no state or local NG911 transition plans in place—which may indicate these states were in the early phases of planning for the transition to NG911 or had not yet begun. GAO spoke with state and local 911 officials in 9 states, which were in various phases of implementing NG911, and found that none of the 9 selected states were accepting images, audio files, or video. State and local 911 officials identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911. Such challenges are related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. For example, officials in 3 states said that the current funding they collect from telephone service subscribers may not be sufficient to support NG911's transition costs while simultaneously funding the operation of existing 911 systems.

Federal agencies—including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have responsibilities to support NG911 implementation, such as through coordinating activities and administering grants, and are taking actions to assist state and local entities in addressing challenges to NG911's implementation. Such actions include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders to explore emerging NG911 issues. For example, as the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, NHTSA's National 911 Program is developing resources on NG911 topics, such as federal funding and governance structures. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to facilitate the state and local transition to NG911, the program lacks specific performance goals and measures to assess its progress. Without such goals and measures, it is not clear to what extent the program is effectively achieving its mission.

In 2018, the National 911 Program plans to establish an interagency initiative tasked with creating a National NG911 Roadmap. This roadmap is intended to identify next steps for the federal government in supporting the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a list of national-level tasks as part of its roadmap initiative, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out these tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap's objectives. Collaborating with the appropriate federal agencies to determine federal roles and responsibilities to carry out the roadmap's national-level tasks could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve those tasks. Furthermore, developing an implementation plan that details how the roadmap's tasks will be achieved would place the National 911 Program in a better position to effectively lead interagency efforts to implement NG911 nationwide.

GAO recommends that NHTSA's National 911 Program develop performance goals and measures and, for the National NG911 Roadmap, determine agencies' roles and responsibilities and develop an implementation plan. NHTSA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies.  According to the National Emergency Number Association, approximately  240 million calls are made to 911 in the United States each year, with  over 80 percent of these calls made from wireless devices. However, the  nation’s legacy 911 systems rely on aging infrastructure that is not  designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a  result, states and localities—the primary providers of 911 services  through approximately 6,000 call centers nationwide—are working to  upgrade their 911 systems to the next generation of services, commonly  known as Next Generation 911 (NG911). Benefits of NG911 systems  include improved capabilities to communicate with callers, increased  resiliency of 911 operations, and enhanced information sharing among  911 call centers and first responders. Call centers using NG911 will be  able to receive voice calls and accept various forms of data, such as text  messages, images, video, and vehicle crash data. Such information can  help to facilitate quick and accurate dispatch of emergency responders  (such as police, firefighters, and ambulance crews) and can be beneficial  in situations where a 911 caller is unable to speak.

The transition to NG911 includes replacing the existing legacy 911  networks—which carry voice calls and limited data—with NG911 systems that use Internet Protocol (IP)-based technology. As we have previously  reported, modernizing communications networks can improve customers’  access and services. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  notes that as legacy infrastructure is retired, the transition period in which  multiple technologies may be used simultaneously raises potential  challenges for 911 services. To assist states and localities in this  transition, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 (2012 Act)  outlined federal agencies’ roles and responsibilities related to NG911.  The 2012 Act required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  (NHTSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the  U.S. Department of Commerce to create a national program to improve  coordination and communication among federal, state, and local  stakeholders. This initiative is known as the National 911 Program, which  serves as the federal point of coordination for activities among 911  stakeholders and leads the national effort to eventually connect  approximately 6,000 independently operated 911 call centers into an  interconnected, nationwide NG911 system. The 2012 Act also required  FCC—which has regulatory authority over telecommunications carriers— to issue specific recommendations to support the NG911 transition,  among other responsibilities. In addition, the 2012 Act required the U.S.  Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—which has responsibilities  related to ensuring the security and interoperability of emergency  communications nationwide—to work with FCC, NHTSA, and NTIA on  specific NG911 activities.

You asked us to review the status of implementation of NG911  nationwide. This report examines: (1) progress states and localities are  making to implement NG911 and the challenges they have faced and (2)  how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation  challenges and planned next steps.

To address these objectives, we analyzed survey data provided by  NHTSA’s National 911 Program on the status of statewide 911 systems  for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were  available. We also reviewed FCC’s data on state collection and  distribution of 911 fees and charges for calendar year 2015. According to  our review of the survey data, relevant documentation, and conversations  with staff responsible for the data, we determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable to generally describe states’ progress in implementing  NG911 and to provide background on 911 fee collection and costs.

We also selected a non-generalizable sample of 10 states for case  studies, based upon a variety of factors, including variation in geographic  location, reported progress in implementing NG911, number of annual  911 calls, and whether states diverted 911 fees to other uses. We  requested interviews with and documentation from state and local 911  officials from the 10 selected states about NG911 implementation  progress, challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance  needed. We obtained documentation from and interviewed officials from  nine states; one of the selected states did not respond to our requests.  While not generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our  case studies provides examples of broader issues faced by states and  localities in managing the transition to NG911.

In addition to our case study work, we reviewed relevant statutes,  regulations, our prior reports, and documentation of federal agency  actions and plans. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies,  including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS, and officials from national  associations representing emergency-response-technology companies,  wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency-communications entities,  and consumer groups. We identified guidance on leading practices for  performance management, and reviewed interagency collaboration  practices from our prior work. We also applied relevant federal  standards for internal control that are key to helping agencies better  achieve their missions and desired program results. We assessed  NHTSA’s efforts to set goals and achieve desired results for the National  911 Program using these standards, this guidance, and selected  collaboration practices from our prior work. A more detailed summary of  our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.

We conducted our work from January 2017 to January 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

As we have previously reported, 911 services have evolved from basic  911—which provided Americans with a universally recognized emergency  number—to Enhanced 911 which also routes calls to the appropriate call  center and provides information about the caller’s location and a call back  number. NG911 represents the next evolution in 911 services by using  IP-based technology to deliver and process 911 traffic. Under NG911, call  centers will continue to receive voice calls and location information, but  will also be able to accommodate emergency communications from the  range of technologies in use today. In addition, NG911 systems provide  call centers with enhanced capabilities to route and transfer calls and  data, which could improve call centers’ abilities to handle overflow calls  and increase information sharing with first responders.

Generally speaking, 911 communications begin when a caller dials 911  using a landline, wireless, or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)  system. Once a 911 caller places an emergency call, a communications  provider receives and routes the call to the appropriate call center, along  with the caller’s phone number and location (i.e., street address for a  landline caller, approximate geographic location for a wireless caller, and  the subscriber’s address for VoIP). Calls and data may be routed to 911  call centers using legacy methods (i.e., routing calls across traditional  telephone networks) or NG911 methods (i.e., routing calls and other data  through IP-networks). Once the call reaches a call center, trained call  takers and dispatchers determine the nature of the emergency and  dispatch first responders, typically using a variety of equipment and  systems, including call handling systems, mapping programs, and  computer aided dispatch. Figure 1 illustrates the 911 communications  and dispatch process.

As illustrated in figure 1, NG911 systems use IP-networks capable of  carrying voice plus large amounts of data. These emergency-services  networks are typically deployed at the state or regional level with multiple  call centers connecting to the network. However, the existence of an IP- network alone does not constitute an NG911 system. As defined by  standards developed by the emergency communications community, an  NG911 system should have the capability to, among other things: provide a secure environment for emergency communications; acquire and integrate additional data for routing and answering calls; process all types of emergency calls, including multimedia messages;  transfer calls with added data to other call centers or first  responders.

While NG911 systems must possess certain capabilities, it is important to  note that states and localities may make decisions about which  capabilities they intend to use to best meet their needs. In addition, states  and localities have the authority to make decisions about what NG911  equipment, systems, and vendors to use; thus, the configurations of these  systems vary.

According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program,  the transition to NG911 may require a variety of technical and operational  changes to current 911 systems and processes. For example, technical  changes can include upgrades to networks or installing new hardware or  software in 911 call centers. Operational changes can include the need  for additional training or the development of new policies and procedures  (e.g., new procedures for processing or storing multimedia). These  technical and operational changes may also have effects on 911 funding  and state and local governance structures, which we will discuss in more  detail later in this report.

According to an FCC advisory body that examined NG911 systems  architecture in 2016, while NG911 systems are implemented in a variety  of ways at the state or local level, NG911 implementation can occur  gradually and in phases. According to this model, NG911  implementation occurs on a continuum that begins with legacy 911  systems and ends with a fully deployed NG911 national end-state where  all individual 911 call centers nationwide would be connected. The NG911  implementation model identifies activities that take place as part of the  NG911 transition, many of which occur concurrently, such as: planning (e.g., conducting feasibility studies, preparing databases,  establishing governance models); acquiring, testing, and implementing NG911 system elements (e.g.,  establishing an emergency-services IP-network, location-based call  routing, processing multimedia);  connecting call centers within a jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdictional end- state in which all call centers are fully NG911 operational, supported  by agreements, policies, and procedures); and  connecting NG911 systems nationwide (i.e., national end-state in  which all call centers in the nation are fully NG911 operational,  supported by agreements, policies, and procedures).

In addition, because 911 services provide an essential function, the  implementation of NG911 generally involves using both the legacy  system and the NG911 system simultaneously for a period of time,  according to the FCC advisory body, to ensure 911 services are not  disrupted as new system elements are tested and implemented.

Deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of 911 authorities at the  state and local level. As we have previously reported, all 50 states and  the District of Columbia collect—or have authorized local entities to  collect—funding for 911 from telephone service subscribers, and methods  within each state for collecting funds vary. FCC, as required by statute,  reports to Congress annually on the states’ collection and distribution of  911 fees and charges. There are approximately 6,000 call centers  nationwide that process 911 calls, often at the county or city level, and  these centers can vary greatly in size and technical sophistication. The  state and local governance structures that oversee 911 operations also  vary by location. For example, we previously reported that some states  collect fees or charges for 911 and administer a statewide 911 program.  Other states authorize local entities to collect fees or charges for 911 and  administer 911 programs at the local level. Still other states use a  combination of these approaches. According to a panel of experts  convened by the National 911 Program, historically, 911 authority has  been coordinated and maintained locally with no requirement to  coordinate with other jurisdictions. However, the transition to NG911  enables connection of 911 systems. Thus, as previously mentioned, the  NG911 transition may require technological and operational changes, as  well as changes to 911 policies and governance responsibilities for states  and localities.

While deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of entities at the  state and local level, federal agencies—including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC,  and DHS—have responsibilities to support state and local  implementation, including through facilitating coordination of activities  among 911 stakeholders and administering federal grants, for example:

NHTSA houses the National 911 Program as part of its Office of  Emergency Medical Services (Office of EMS) to provide national  leadership and coordination for the NG911 transition throughout the  United States, as previously mentioned. According to NHTSA, the  fiscal year 2017 budget for the National 911 Program was $2.74  million. Among other activities, which we will discuss later in this  report, the National 911 Program surveys states on progress  implementing NG911 and reports this survey data annually.

FCC issues orders and regulations for 911 service providers on topics  relevant to NG911, such as 911 reliability, location accuracy, and text- to-911. FCC also sponsors advisory bodies comprised of government  and industry experts that study relevant topics and provide  recommendations related to NG911, such as the Task Force on  Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture and the  Communications, Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council.

While there are no federally mandated time frames for implementing  NG911, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 requires  specific actions of some federal agencies as outlined in table 1, below.

In addition, according to the National 911 Program, as states and  localities continue to implement NG911, and begin to explore  interconnection with other states’ 911 systems, federal agencies may  need to take steps to help ensure state NG911 networks are  interoperable and connected. We will discuss actions taken by federal  agencies to assist states and localities to implement NG911 later in this  report.

States and Localities Have Reported Varied Progress in Implementing NG911 and Identified Funding, Technology, and Governance Challenges

Reported Progress among States Varies in Implementing Next Generation 911

According to NHTSA’s most recent national survey, state and local  progress implementing NG911 varies, and about half of all states  reported being in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015. While a  few states are well into statewide implementation, NHTSA officials told us  that no state had completely implemented all NG911 functions.  Additionally, as of the fall of 2017, none of the selected states we spoke  with were processing multimedia—such as images or audio/video  recordings—through their 911 systems due to concerns related to  privacy, liability, and the ability to store and manage these types of data,  among other things. The national survey data, based on responses from  45 states, measured the extent to which NG911 planning and acquisition  of NG911 equipment and services were occurring, and the extent to  which basic NG911 functions were operational at the state and local  levels in 2015.

Planning: This measure includes state and local NG911 plans for  governance, funding, system components, and operations. In this context,  system components refer to an emergency services IP-based network,  NG911 software, system and information security, and databases, among  other things, according to NHTSA’s survey. In total, 25 of 45 states  reported having a state or at least one local NG911 plan in place;  conversely, 18 states reported having no NG911 plan in place at either  the state or local level—which may indicate they are in the early stages of  planning for the NG911 transition or have not yet begun the transition to  NG911.

Acquisition: These measures identify states or local entities that have  defined their NG911 needs and awarded contracts, and then installed and  tested acquired NG911 components and services. Twenty-four states  reported awarding at least one contract at the state or local level for  NG911 components and services. Twenty-three states reported having  installed and tested NG911 components and services at either the state  or local level.

NG911 services: This is a measure of 911 authorities that have some  basic, functioning NG911 infrastructure in place. In total, 21 states  reported having some level of basic NG911 services in place at the state  or local level. Of these 21 states, 10 reported that all 911 authorities  within the state were using NG911 technology to process emergency  calls. Another 7 of these states reported that 25 percent or less of their  state’s 911 authorities were using NG911 technology to process  emergency calls.

Officials Identified State and Local Funding, Technology, and Governance Challenges to Implementing NG911

Federal officials, industry stakeholders, and state and local 911 officials  we interviewed from nine states identified a number of challenges to  implementing NG911, including challenges related to funding, evolving  technology and operations, and governance.

Funding: State and local officials in four of nine selected states identified  insufficient funding as one of the challenges they face in implementing  NG911. Additionally, FCC, NHTSA, and industry reports noted that state  and local financing strategies are generally insufficient to fully implement  NG911. Specifically, these reports note that the need to provide new  capital for NG911 implementation while simultaneously funding legacy  operational costs during the transition can strain state and local funding.

Limited funding: Officials in three states told us that their current  funding may not be able to support the upfront costs of infrastructure  and equipment acquisitions associated with the transition to NG911.  Further, officials said they will need to simultaneously fund both the  new NG911 and legacy 911 systems currently in operation until the  NG911 systems are fully operational. To address these challenges, a  Minnesota official told us about how the state leveraged economies of  scale to reduce overall costs through cost sharing between multiple  call centers and of call centers consolidating operations from 114 to  104 call centers. Additionally, a Virginia official told us that to cover  the upfront costs of transitioning to NG911, the state plans to borrow  from the state treasury and then repay the treasury with future-year  fee collections.

Fee diversion: Diversion of fees intended for 911 costs to non-911  activities may affect a state’s or locality’s ability to cover NG911  transition costs and necessitate identifying alternative funding  sources. The FCC’s 2016 annual report on 911 fees indicates that for  calendar year 2015, all but two of the states that responded to FCC’s  911 fee survey affirmed that their state or jurisdiction collects fees  from phone users to support or implement 911 services. State and  local authorities also determine how these 911 fees can be used.  FCC’s report also indicated that eight states and Puerto Rico reported  diverting a total of more than $220 million (or approximately 8.4  percent) of 911 fees collected to non-911 purposes. Some of these  diverted funds were directed to other public safety programs, and  others were diverted to either non-public safety or unspecified  purposes. According to one state official, had it not been for 911 fees  being diverted to non-911 purposes, funding would have been  sufficient to cover the NG911 transition without having to go to the  state legislature for additional funding. However, officials in the other  eight selected states told us that either fee diversion was not an issue  in their state or that the diversion of funds had not affected their  state’s ability to implement NG911.

Evolving technology and operations: Officials in eight states told us  that the retirement of legacy infrastructure and the transition to IP-based  systems introduces new technical and operational challenges for call  centers and states, as well as for equipment and service providers.

Interoperability: Officials in three selected states mentioned that  connecting to neighboring networks—whether within or between  states—could pose challenges. For example, officials mentioned that  states and localities may have obtained different equipment, software  applications, or service providers – all of which can make  interconnections difficult. Officials in Maine and New Hampshire told  us that differences in service providers can also be a challenge to  seamlessly connecting to neighboring systems. In an instance where  two states (Minnesota and North Dakota) have worked to connect  their 911 systems, both states used the same service provider, which  officials said allowed for fewer barriers to connection.

Cyber risks: Officials in three states told us that the transition from a  traditional system that only transmits voice traffic to an IP-based  system that transmits voice and data traffic has significantly increased  the risk of a cyber-attack. This can be a challenge because managing  cyber risks is a new and evolving role for state and local 911  authorities. Approaching the transition to NG911 without managing  these risks could result in disrupted or disabled call center operations  and ultimately a delayed response to an emergency situation.

Multimedia: Officials in three states mentioned potential  implementation challenges related to accepting and processing  multimedia such as audio recordings, images, and videos. More  specifically, one official said they did not have procedures to manage  or store these multimedia files once received. In addition, another  official raised privacy and liability concerns.

Call routing: One of the core services of an NG911 system is the  ability to have calls routed to the appropriate call center based on a  wireless caller’s physical location, instead of the location of the  cellular tower that receives and transmits the call. An FCC-sponsored  working group reported that there are several options for achieving  this and each option has unique positive and negative aspects. One  challenge officials in two states noted was that rather than a single,  nationwide approach to routing these calls, state and local 911  authorities would need to work individually with the wireless carriers to  determine how to best implement location-based call routing.

Governance: FCC has noted that transitioning to NG911 will likely result  in new roles and levels of coordination between state 911 authorities,  local 911 authorities, 911 call centers, and 911 service providers. Further,  relationships among authorities at the state and local level may change  as states work to interconnect NG911 systems. State and local officials  noted that these types of governance challenges can apply in a variety of  situations, including within or between states.

Evolving roles: As previously mentioned, 911 governance structures  vary among states. These varying governance structures may pose  different challenges. For example, some states have a centralized  structure in which a single government agency is responsible for  statewide 911 system’s administration and policy. Officials in two  states told us that although they faced challenges transitioning to  NG911, their states’ centralized 911 structure eased the transition in  their states because there was uniformity in policy and technology,  among other things, coming from a single statewide authority. In other  states, 911 systems are primarily a local responsibility and organized  with decentralized authorities and resources. In these instances, there  may be specific challenges related to transitioning to an  interconnected NG911 system. Such challenges may include the  need for increased levels of coordination among numerous  jurisdictions with potentially disparate organizational structures, levels  of funding, and priorities. An official also noted that there are  governance challenges related to connecting states and evolving  relationships between 911 authorities and service providers.

Informing decision makers: One of the challenges identified by  officials in two states is differing levels of experience and  understanding by state and local officials as to what NG911 priorities  should be for timely implementation. To help with this understanding,  the federal government is making efforts to educate state and local  authorities on how to facilitate policymaker understanding as well as  provide regular updates to stakeholders on recent NG911  developments. We discuss some of these efforts later in this report.

Federal Agencies Are Addressing NG911 Implementation Challenges, but the National 911 Program Lacks Measurable Goals and Next Steps for the NG911 Roadmap Initiative

Federal Agencies Are Taking Actions to Address NG911 Implementation Challenges

While state and local entities have the primary responsibility for  implementing NG911 technology and services, federal agencies are  taking actions to assist state and local 911 entities to address NG911  implementation challenges. Actions taken include developing resources,  offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders. More  specifically, we identified selected activities that were taken by NHTSA,  NTIA, FCC, and DHS that address some of the funding, technology, and  governance challenges raised by state and local 911 stakeholders, for  example:

Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and NTIA, in  consultation with FCC and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of  costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911  systems. According to NHTSA officials, the cost study will present a  nationwide view, rather than a state-by-state view, on the progress of  NG911 implementation and its associated costs.

Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer  a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the  adoption and operation of NG911 services. In September 2017,  NHTSA and NTIA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining  implementing regulations for the grant program. NHTSA and NTIA  expect to award the grants in 2018.

Technology standards: The National 911 Program issued an annual  guide in 2017 that stressed the importance of using open technology  standards for NG911 services. The guide provides a list of standards  that have been recently updated and an analysis that identifies  whether existing standards fully address NG911 processes and  protocols.

Cybersecurity guides: DHS issued a guide in 2016 that identified  cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies.  According to DHS officials, the National 911 Program provided input  on this guide. In addition, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine  911 call-centers’ architecture issued a report in 2016 that provided a  cybersecurity self-assessment tool for call centers and guidance on  cybersecurity strategies.

Governance plans: To address challenges related to the evolving  roles for state and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program  issued a guide in 2016 that provided practices for states to consider  when interconnecting NG911 networks, and DHS issued a guide in  2015 for emergency communications officials for establishing,  assessing, and updating their governance structures. In addition, an  FCC advisory body issued a report in 2016 that identified NG911  governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states,  localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the  deployment of NG911.

In addition to federal agency efforts to assist the state and local 911  community, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of  establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911  Roadmap. As part of this initiative, the National 911 Program plans to  convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify tasks that need to be  completed at the national level by the federal government and other  public and private-sector organizations to support the creation of a  national, interconnected NG911 system. Additional details regarding this  planned activity are described in further detail later in this report. For  additional information on federal actions to address state and local  NG911 challenges, see appendix II.

National 911 Program Lacks Goals and Performance Measures

As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 activities, the National  911 Program has taken a variety of actions to assist the state and local  911 community, in collaboration with other federal agencies. However,  the program lacks goals and performance measures to assess whether  these activities are achieving desired results. National 911 Program  officials stated that they initiate program activities based on feedback  received from the 911 community. In addition, officials said the program’s  activities fall within the tasks established in the Next Generation 911  Advancement Act of 2012. However, the National 911 Program does not  have a means to assess its progress toward meeting its responsibilities  established in the 2012 Act. National 911 Program officials said the Office  of EMS—the office within NHTSA in which the program is housed—has a  strategic plan, but it is outdated and does not contain specific goals or  performance measures related to 911 or NG911 implementation. Officials  said the Office of EMS has held preliminary discussions to begin updating  its strategic plan by January 2019 and plans to include goals and  performance measures related to 911 and NG911 services. Office of  EMS officials told us the Office of EMS strategic plan will be jointly  developed with the National 911 Program. However the Office of EMS  had not yet developed a draft strategic plan during the time of our review.

Federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define  objectives in order to achieve desired results. According to these  standards, an entity determines its mission, establishes specific  measurable objectives, and formulates plans to achieve its objectives.  These standards state that management sets objectives in order to meet  the entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals and requirements of  applicable laws and regulations. In addition, our work on leading  practices for managing for results indicated that an agency’s strategic  goals should also explain what results are expected from the agency and  when to expect those results. Further, these goals form a basis for an  entity to identify strategies to fulfill its mission and improve its operations  to support the achievement of that mission.

As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, the National 911  Program faces a complex and challenging task of assisting the 911  community while the nation’s 911 systems undergo a major  transformation. However, without specific goals and related performance  measures, the National 911 Program is unable to assess how well its  activities are achieving results in relation to its responsibilities identified in  the 2012 Act. As the National 911 Program and the Office of EMS  consider creating a strategic plan, ensuring that the plan includes specific  goals and related measures for the National 911 Program would help  officials better understand whether the program’s activities are effectively  assisting states and localities in transitioning to a fully integrated national  NG911 system, and help identify any programmatic changes that might  be needed.

National 911 Program Lacks Plans to Identify Roles and Responsibilities for the NG911 Roadmap Initiative and an Implementation Plan to Achieve Objectives

As previously mentioned, the National 911 Program is in the early stages  of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911  Roadmap. This initiative will convene the 911 stakeholder community to  identify national-level tasks that need to be completed by federal  agencies and other organizations to realize a national, interconnected  NG911 system. According to the National 911 Program, a list of the  national-level tasks needed to advance NG911 implementation  nationwide has not been created to date. In addition, state officials we  spoke with said there are certain issues related to interoperability and  cybersecurity that federal agencies need to address before states can  connect their respective state NG911 systems. To address these issues,  NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued a request for proposal (RFP) in  August 2017 for managing the roadmap development process and  awarded a contract in September 2017. While the National 911 Program  is taking steps to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, the program does  not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities  to carry out national-level tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve  the roadmap’s objectives.

NHTSA’s NG911 roadmap RFP specifies that by identifying a list of  national-level tasks that are developed and adopted by the 911  stakeholder community, the roadmap could serve as a blueprint to carry  out these tasks and thereby ensure the interoperability of the nation’s  NG911 system. However, the National 911 Program does not have plans  for the entities participating in the development of the roadmap to be  assigned roles and responsibilities for executing the roadmap’s national- level tasks. National 911 Program officials told us the National 911  Program does not plan to assign roles and responsibilities because  NHTSA does not have the authority to require or assign tasks for other  entities. Additionally, program officials view the simultaneous identification  of tasks and assignments of responsibility for those tasks as a risk to  facilitating a candid and productive discussion with entities participating in  the roadmap initiative. However, officials stated it may be appropriate for  agencies participating in the roadmap initiative to perform specific tasks  after the roadmap is finalized. We have previously examined interagency  collaborative mechanisms and identified certain key issues for federal  agencies to consider when using these mechanisms to achieve results.  Our prior work has found that following leading collaboration practices,  such as clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in  collaboration, can enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies  and provide an understanding of who will do what in support of meeting  the aims of the collaborative group.

As stated above, the RFP specifies that a roadmap developed by and  adopted by 911 stakeholders could serve as a blueprint to carry out the  roadmap’s tasks. Securing the commitment of agencies to assigned roles  could help organize the collaborative group’s joint and individual efforts  and thereby better facilitate decision making. As we have previously  found, a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of agencies  participating in an interagency effort—such as the execution of the  roadmap’s tasks—may limit agencies’ abilities to effectively achieve  shared objectives. Given the complexity of the task and the number of  agencies that could be involved, following selected leading collaboration  practices for the roadmap initiative—particularly with regard to  collaborating with roadmap stakeholders to clarify their roles and  responsibilities (whether during the creation of the task list or  afterwards)—could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working  together to achieve the national-level tasks.

Developing an Implementation Plan to Achieve Objectives

While clarifying the roles and responsibilities of roadmap stakeholders for  the execution of the roadmap’s tasks is an important collaborative step,  the National 911 Program has additional responsibilities as the lead entity  for the initiative. However, National 911 Program officials are unable to  clearly articulate how the program will proceed following the completion of  the roadmap. National 911 Program officials said without knowing the  contents of the roadmap, it would be premature to specify how the  roadmap’s national-level tasks would be completed. Officials stated that  once the roadmap is completed, possible next steps may include  identification of timelines, deadlines, and a mechanism for tracking  progress, among other things, but officials stated that these steps are not  required in the roadmap RFP. As stated above, federal internal control  standards call for management to clearly define objectives in specific  terms. According to these standards, management defines what is to be  achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time  frames for achievement.

Without a clear plan for how the National 911 Program would take next  steps to support the implementation of the roadmap’s objectives and  tasks, the National 911 Program may not be prepared to take effective  action once the roadmap is completed. We have previously found that  having an implementation plan can assist agencies to better focus and  prioritize goals and objectives, and align planned activities. Once the  roadmap is completed, developing an implementation plan that details  what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished will place the  National 911 Program in a better position moving forward to support the  completion of the national-level tasks.

The current 911 system is undergoing a historic transition. With no federal  requirement that states transition to NG911 services, federal leadership is  critical to addressing interoperability challenges and promoting the goal of  an interconnected national system. As the lead federal entity for fostering  coordination and collaboration among federal, state, and local 911  authorities, the National 911 Program plays a critical role in coordinating  NG911 implementation efforts to improve the nation’s 911 services.  However, this program—in collaboration with other federal agencies— faces a complex and challenging task to help move approximately 6,000  independent 911 call centers toward an interconnected national NG911  system. In addition, given that the NG911 transition is still in its early  stages and is an ongoing effort, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of  various federal actions to assist states and localities in the transition. In  light of these challenges, without specific goals and related measures to  assess effectiveness, the National 911 Program may be hindered in  determining whether it is making progress towards its stated mission.

Through the roadmap initiative, the National 911 Program has taken  important first steps in identifying the need for actions at the national  level, in order to fully realize the desired end-state of a national,  interconnected NG911 system. However, while identifying needed next  steps is essential, equally important to the collaborative effort’s success is  (1) defining and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the entities  best suited to undertake these actions, and (2) developing plans for how  the National 911 Program will support implementation to achieve the  roadmap’s objectives. If taken, these actions could help further NG911  implementation nationwide and help the National 911 Program and  federal agencies in assisting states and localities to improve these  lifesaving services.

We are making the following three recommendations to the Administrator  of NHTSA regarding the National 911 Program: develop specific program goals and performance measures related to  NG911 implementation. (Recommendation 1)  in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles  and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National  NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks  over which each agency has jurisdiction. (Recommendation 2) develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the  National NG911 Roadmap’s national-level tasks. (Recommendation  3)

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Transportation,  Commerce, and Homeland Security and FCC for their review and  comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of  Transportation agreed with the recommendations. The Departments of  Transportation and Homeland Security also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of  Commerce and FCC had no comments.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department  of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the  Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Managing  Director of the FCC, and other interested parties. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) progress states and localities are  making to implement Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the challenges  they have faced and (2) how federal agencies have addressed state and  local implementation challenges and planned next steps.

To describe state and local progress in implementing NG911 and  background information on fee collection and costs, we analyzed select  survey data elements from the 2016 National 911 Progress Report and  the Eighth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and  Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, maintained by  the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) respectively. More  specifically, we analyzed the most recent state-provided data (from  calendar year 2015) related to the planning and implementation of NG911  at the state and local levels, as well as NG911 cost and 911-related  revenue data. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing  relevant documents and discussing data elements with staff responsible  for collecting and analyzing the data. We also conducted our own testing  to check the consistency of the data. We found the data from both  sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes to describe states’  progress in implementing NG911 and provide background on 911 fee  collection and costs. While these data provide the best nationwide picture  of NG911 implementation and fee collection, and are reliable for our  purposes, there are some limitations on how the data can be used. Since  we did not validate the state-reported responses, our findings based on  these data are limited to what states reported. Additionally, regarding the  2016 National 911 Progress Report data, there are limitations to (1)  making comparisons between states because states have different  approaches to implementing NG911 and (2) ascertaining year-over-year  progress because reporting is voluntary and states’ response rates can  vary year to year.

To describe implementation challenges that states and local authorities  may be encountering, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 10  states as case studies, based upon a variety of factors, including reported  progress in implementing NG911, statewide planning and coordination,  reported number of annual 911 calls, whether states diverted 911 fees to  other uses, and variation in geographic location. We selected these  states, in part, based on their responses to the two aforementioned  surveys. Based on the aforementioned criteria, we selected the following  states to include as case studies: California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,  Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and  Virginia. We reviewed documents and interviewed state officials from all  of these states except Nevada about NG911 implementation progress,  challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance needed. We  contacted 911 officials in Nevada but did not receive responses. We also  interviewed local officials in four of the selected states. While not  generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our case studies  provides examples of broader issues faced by states and localities in  managing the NG911 transition.

To determine how federal agencies have addressed state and local  implementation challenges and planned next steps, we reviewed relevant  statutes, regulations, and documentation of federal agency actions and  plans, and our prior reports. We also interviewed officials from federal  agencies, including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and  Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and the U.S. Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), about federal actions taken and plans for next  steps. To understand planning activities undertaken by NHTSA’s National  911 Program, and its planned project to develop a National NG911  Roadmap, we reviewed the National 911 Program’s internal planning  documents, the program’s request for proposal to develop a national  roadmap, the program’s written responses to our questions, and  interviewed National 911 Program officials. In addition, we interviewed  officials from national associations representing emergency-response- technology companies, wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency- communications entities, and groups representing deaf and hard-of- hearing consumers to gain their perspectives on federal actions taken  and next steps. We assessed the National 911 Program’s strategic- planning activities against leading practices for performance management  found in our prior work on strategic planning and goal setting and federal  internal control standards. We assessed the National 911 Program’s  planned activities for the national roadmap project against federal internal  control standards and selected key practices to enhance interagency  collaboration identified in our prior work.

Appendix II: Selected Federal Actions since 2013 to Address State and Local Challenges in Implementing Next Generation 911 (NG911), as of October 2017

Description of challenge  State and local funding may  not be sufficient to support  costs associated with  transitioning to NG911  equipment and infrastructure.

Transitioning from legacy  infrastructure to Internet  Protocol-based systems  presents technical and  operational challenges such  as interoperability and  cybersecurity risks.

Federal actions  Grant resources: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s  (NHTSA) National 911 Program issued on its website a list clarifying which of  the fiscal year 2016 emergency-communications grants may be used for  NG911 services. Program officials said they developed this list in collaboration  with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation  with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and DHS, plan to issue  a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to  implement NG911 systems and on the nationwide progress of implementing  NG911 services.  Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115  million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and  operation of NG911 services. NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in  2018.  Funding mechanisms: An advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report in  2016 that identified common costs and funding mechanisms for 911 officials to  consider. The report also introduced a 911 funding sustainment model  designed for use by 911 officials to calculate their financial needs to support a  transition to NG911 implementation.   Guides on technology standards and procurement practices: In 2017,  NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued an annual guide on emergency- communications technology standards that stressed the importance of using  open technology standards for NG911 services. The National 911 Program  issued another guide in 2016 that provides information on procuring goods  and services related to NG911 such as practices for call centers to consider  when developing their request for proposals and contracts.  Examining emerging technology issues: In 2017, FCC tasked a public- private advisory council to recommend how FCC can promote the NG911  transition, enhance the reliability of NG911, and mitigate the threat of 911  outages. Prior to that tasking, the FCC advisory council issued a report in  2016 that explored location-based routing issues and discussed transition  considerations from legacy 911 to NG911.  NG911 cybersecurity guide and technical assistance: DHS, with input from  NHTSA’s National 911 Program according to DHS officials, issued a guide in  2016 that identifies cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation  strategies. In addition, DHS provides NG911 technical assistance for states  seeking assistance with strategic planning and technology integration. In a  separate effort, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call center  architecture issued a report in 2016 that provides a cybersecurity self- assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies.

Description of challenge  States may face a range of  challenges related to  evolving roles for state and  local 911 authorities that  could hinder NG911  implementation.

Federal actions  Guides on state and legislative planning: NHTSA’s National 911 Program  issued guides on state 911 planning and legislative issues to consider for  NG911 and awarded a contract in September 2017 to update those guides. In  2016, the National 911 Program issued a guidebased on the experiences of  Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that identifies practices to  consider for states interconnecting NG911 networks across state lines.  Exploring NG911 governance implementation issues: In 2016, an advisory  body tasked by FCC issued a report that identifies NG911 governance  approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call  centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911. In 2013, FCC  also issued a report that details recommendations to Congress for  transitioning from legacy 911 to NG911 networks.  Guide on emergency communications governance structures: In 2015,  DHS and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators  issued a guide that provides characteristics of effective governance  approaches and best practices for officials to establish, assess, and update  their governance structures.

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant  Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Camilo Flores, Steven  Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Kelly L. Rubin, Michael Sweet, Hai Tran, Marika  Van Laan, and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.