Emergency Communications: Increased Regional Collaboration Could Enhance Capabilities

During emergencies, reliable communications are critical. Disasters, such as 2017's hurricanes, continue to test the nation's emergency communications capabilities. As disasters can cross jurisdictional boundaries, collaboration within and across regions is very important.

GAO was asked to review implementation of the Post-Katrina Act's provisions related to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. This report examines: (1) challenges related to emergency communications that selected stakeholders have experienced; (2) their views on DHS's emergency communications assistance; and (3) the regional working groups established by the Post-Katrina Act and their effect on emergency communications capabilities. GAO reviewed DHS's reports and grant data for fiscal years 2011–2016 and conducted case studies of three cities—Houston, Los Angeles, and Boston—selected based on the number of declared disasters, DHS grant funding, and geographic diversity. GAO interviewed DHS officials; leaders of all 10 regional working groups and other stakeholders, including public safety officials in the case study cities; and others chosen for their expertise.

Selected first responders and public safety officials identified various challenges related to emergency communications. These challenges include attaining the interoperability of communication systems, obtaining funding, ensuring ongoing training, and increasing the emphasis on communications during emergency response exercises. For example, some stakeholders told GAO about challenges related to equipment that is not interoperable, and others said first responders need training after investments are made in new interoperable communications equipment.

To help address these challenges and as required by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has provided technical assistance, such as training, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants. It has also established regional emergency communications coordination working groups, which bring together stakeholders from different levels of government and the private sector within FEMA's 10 regions.

While emergency communications challenges persist, stakeholders told GAO that DHS's technical assistance generally meets their needs and that FEMA grants have helped them enhance emergency communications capabilities. In particular, stakeholders found training for specific communications positions was useful. Houston-area officials said this training was critical in preparing first responders for Hurricane Harvey. Some stakeholders told GAO that FEMA grants helped them address needs that would otherwise go unfunded, including interoperable communications networks and equipment.

GAO found that the regional working groups have enhanced emergency communications capabilities through building relationships and sharing information. Within the respective regions, group members have:

assisted each other during disasters and emergencies,

developed technical solutions to enhance interoperability, and

addressed policy concerns, such as the use of interoperable radio channels during emergencies.

However, most regional group leaders told GAO that more collaboration across the groups was needed. GAO's prior work has also found that including all relevant participants can enhance collaborative efforts. Further, DHS's strategic plan for emergency communications established a vision of collaboration among stakeholders across the nation. While FEMA has encouraged collaboration among regional working-group leaders, cross-regional efforts have been limited and do not involve all group members. Developing and implementing an appropriate ongoing mechanism for collaboration could enhance emergency communications capabilities, such as by helping group members address common challenges. Without ways for all members of these groups to collaborate across regions, members may be missing opportunities to share information and leverage the knowledge and experiences of their counterparts throughout the nation.

FEMA should work with regional working-group members to reach consensus and implement an ongoing mechanism, such as a national-level working group, to encourage nationwide collaboration across regions. DHS concurred with this recommendation.

For first responders in emergency situations, reliable communications are  critical for a rapid and sufficient response. Hurricane Katrina exposed  gaps in how federal, state, and local entities responded to the  catastrophic storm, gaps that include revealing that the equipment the  first responders used for emergency communications were often not  operable and interoperable. Congress passed the Post-Katrina  Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to  improve the federal government’s preparation for and response to natural  and manmade disasters. Among the more than 300 reforms in the Post- Katrina Act, two of the provisions relate to emergency communications  during disaster response and recovery. These provisions required  that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provide assistance  to support the rapid establishment of interoperable emergency  communications in urban areas and other areas deemed to be  consistently at a high level of risk from disasters; and  the establishment of regional emergency communications  coordination working groups (RECCWG) in each of the 10 Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions.

While DHS has provided assistance in the form of technical assistance  and funding and Congress has established the RECCWGs (commonly  pronounced rec-wigs), natural disasters such as hurricanes Harvey, Irma,  and Maria in 2017 continued to test the nation’s emergency  communications capabilities. These types of events can cross  jurisdictional borders, highlighting the critical need for collaboration of first  responders and public safety officials both within and across regions.

You asked us to evaluate how the implementation of the Post-Katrina  Act’s provisions has affected disaster preparedness, response, and  recovery in general. In this report, we examined:  the challenges selected stakeholders have experienced related to  emergency communications;  the emergency communications assistance—technical assistance and  funding—provided by DHS and selected stakeholders’ views on these  efforts; and  the RECCWGs established by the Post-Katrina Act and their effect on  emergency communications capabilities.

To address these objectives, we reviewed RECCWG annual reports from  2011 to 2016, the most recent years available. We also reviewed relevant  reports and documentation from DHS—such as reports on national  preparedness and on specific emergency incidents and technical  assistance offerings—as well as other documents we identified through a  literature search. We analyzed FEMA data on preparedness grant funding  from fiscal years 2011 to 2016. After reviewing relevant documentation  and discussing the data with FEMA staff, we determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to describe the approximate total amounts of  funding for each grant program that had been provided to support  emergency communications.

In addition, we interviewed DHS officials from FEMA and the Office of  Emergency Communications (OEC). We selected 41 emergency  communications stakeholders and through interviews or written  responses, obtained their perspectives on the general topics covered in  our review—challenges relating to emergency communications, DHS  technical assistance and grants, and the RECCWGs. These stakeholders  included 20 RECCWG leaders (representing all 10 FEMA regions)  representatives of 2 public safety associations and 2 tribal emergency-  management organizations; and 17 other public safety officials and first  responders with knowledge of emergency communications. We selected  these individuals based on their involvement with the RECCWGs, as part  of our case studies (described below), or because of their emergency  communications experience. We conducted case studies of emergency  communications in Houston, Boston, and Los Angeles. We selected  these urban areas to include variation in geographic location, in the types  of declared disasters and emergencies experienced from 2011 to 2016,  and in the amounts of DHS grant funding for emergency communications  received from fiscal years 2011 to 2016. For each case study we  reviewed documents about emergency communications in that urban  area, such as reports about emergency events or articles identified in our  literature search, and interviewed multiple stakeholders, including the  relevant statewide interoperability coordinator and FEMA regional  emergency communications coordinator, a city or county emergency  manager, at least one first responder with knowledge of emergency  communications, and other selected public safety officials. While the  results from our case studies and interviews are not generalizable, they  provide illustrative examples of challenges related to emergency  communications, views on DHS-provided technical assistance and  funding, and how the RECCWGs have enhanced emergency  communications capabilities. We compared the collaborative efforts of the  RECCWGs’ and FEMA’s efforts to facilitate such collaboration with the  National Emergency Communications Plan, as well as practices for  enhancing interagency collaboration that we identified in prior work and  federal standards for internal control.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2016 to April 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.

Effective communications are vital to first responders’ ability to respond to  emergencies and ensure the safety of both their personnel and the public.  In particular, first responders use communications systems to gather  information, coordinate a response, and request additional resources and  assistance from neighboring jurisdictions and the federal government.

First responders use different communications systems, such as land  mobile radio (LMR) and commercial wireless services.

LMR: These systems are the primary means for first responders to  gather and share information while conducting their daily operations  and to coordinate their emergency response efforts. LMR systems are  intended to provide secure, reliable voice communications in a variety  of environments, scenarios, and emergencies. Across the nation,  there are thousands of separate LMR systems. They operate by  transmitting voice communications through radio waves at specific  frequencies and channels within the radio frequency portion of the  electromagnetic spectrum.

Commercial wireless services: For data transmissions (such as  location information, images, and video) public safety entities often  pay for commercial wireless services. Some jurisdictions also use  commercial wireless services for voice communications.

These systems must work together, or be interoperable, to ensure  effective communication. Emergency communications interoperability  refers to the ability of first responders and public safety officials to use  their radios and other equipment to communicate with each other across  agencies and jurisdictions when needed and as authorized, as shown in  our hypothetical example of response to a fire in figure 1.

First responders may use designated radio frequencies—known as  interoperability channels—to help communicate among different  jurisdictions. Certain interoperability channels have been designated for  federal agencies to communicate with non-federal agencies, and others  have been designated for use at the state and local levels.

OEC, created within DHS in 2007, has taken a number of steps aimed at  supporting and promoting the ability of public safety officials to  communicate in emergencies and work toward operable and  interoperable emergency communications nationwide. OEC develops  policy and guidance supporting emergency communications across all  levels of government and various types of technologies. OEC also  provides technical assistance—including training, tools, and online and  on-site assistance for federal, state, local, and tribal first responders. Also  as required by the Post-Katrina Act, OEC developed the National  Emergency Communications Plan in 2008 and worked with federal, state,  local, and tribal jurisdictions to update it in 2014 to reflect an evolving  communications environment. The long-term vision of the plan—which  OEC views as the nation’s current strategic plan for emergency  communications—is to enable the nation’s emergency response  community to communicate and share information across levels of  government, jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizations for all threats and  hazards, as needed and when authorized.

FEMA is responsible for coordinating government-wide disaster response  efforts, including on-the-ground emergency communications support and  some technical assistance. Additionally, FEMA provides a range of grant  assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial entities, including  preparedness grants that can be used for emergency communications.  FEMA provides assistance to the RECCWGs, which report to their  respective FEMA regional administrator. A chair and co-chair serve as the  leaders for each RECCWG and provide direction in determining activities  and priorities. These groups are comprised of federal, state, and local  officials, and coordinate with private sector stakeholders. For example,  members include representatives from local fire departments, state and  local police departments, tribal officials, telecommunications companies,  and federal agencies. Figure 2 shows the member states and territories  that compose each group.

The Post-Katrina Act established the RECCWGs and requires each  group:  to assess local emergency communications systems to meet goals of  the National Emergency Communications Plan,  to ensure a coordination process for multijurisdictional and multi- agency emergency communications networks through the expanded  use of mutual aid agreements for emergency-management and  public-safety communications, and  to coordinate support services and networks designed to address  immediate needs in responding to disasters, acts of terrorism and  other manmade disasters.

According to FEMA officials, these groups are run by their members and  determine their own activities. FEMA plays a role in facilitating the groups  and provides some administrative support. Each group reports annually  on the status of the region’s operable and interoperable emergency- communications initiatives. In these reports, the groups describe how  they fulfill their responsibilities and identify areas for improvement. FEMA  compiles the reports into a RECCWG annual report with an executive  summary and distributes it to the heads of OEC, the Federal  Communications Commission, and the National Telecommunications and  Information Administration, as well as to the groups themselves, which  may further distribute the final report as they see fit.

Selected Stakeholders Cited Ongoing Interoperability, Funding, and Training Challenges

We identified several prevalent challenges to emergency communications  based on our analysis of RECCWG annual reports, case studies, and  interviews with emergency communications stakeholders. These  challenges included achieving the interoperability of communication  systems, obtaining funding, ensuring ongoing training, and increasing the  emphasis on communications during emergency response exercises. As  discussed in more detail later, DHS technical assistance and grant  programs as well as coordination efforts of the RECCWGs have focused  on addressing these ongoing challenges.

We identified ongoing technical and non-technical challenges in achieving  interoperability of emergency communications systems. In the 2016  RECCWG annual report, most of these groups (7 of 10) cited  interoperability as a challenge to emergency communications in their  regions. We have reported over the years that interoperability issues  can affect mission operation and put first responders and the public at risk  when responding officials cannot communicate with one another.

Interoperability challenges can exist due to technical issues such as  equipment’s incompatibility. As mentioned previously, first responders  primarily rely on LMR to communicate and coordinate during  emergencies. Although LMR systems have similar components, such as  handheld portable radios and mobile radios mounted in vehicles, systems  that operate on different radio frequency bands are not always  interoperable, making it difficult for different jurisdictions to communicate  with each other without technical solutions such as multi-band radios and  interoperable gateways. Within Los Angeles County, local stakeholders  told us that many jurisdictions use LMR systems that operate on different  radio frequency bands across the area’s 88 cities and 56 law enforcement  agencies. When an emergency involves first responders from a variety of  jurisdictions, communication among them can be challenging. For  example, one stakeholder told us about an incident in September 2015  where a carjacking turned into a car chase through multiple jurisdictions  before the suspect barricaded himself with hostages in a restaurant. The  restaurant was surrounded by multiple law enforcement entities and none  of them could immediately communicate with each other since their LMR  systems operated on different radio frequency bands. According to this  stakeholder, this interoperability challenge was dangerous because the  officers could not share information such as a description of the  suspect.

Interoperability challenges can also exist because of a reliance on  commercial wireless providers for voice and data emergency  communications. In such cases, if the commercial network is overloaded  or damaged, first responders could be unable to communicate within their  own agency. This situation could also result in interoperability challenges  when an agency’s first responders cannot communicate with other  jurisdictions. According to a 2017 OEC report, reliance on commercial providers for first responders’ voice and data access can be problematic  for a variety of reasons—including that they must share these networks  with the public. According to the report, recent events around the country  have demonstrated that regional and city commercial networks are  sometimes overwhelmed and compromised by both routine events and  large gatherings of people. For instance, the report stated that during the  2017 Mardi Gras celebrations in New Orleans, first responders’ wireless  voice and data connections were impaired while responding to an  accident along the parade route, possibly because of the spike in cellular  usage by the public. Additionally, two stakeholders from the same  region told us that a state in their region does not have a statewide LMR  system and relies on commercial wireless service for emergency  communications; such reliance could cause interoperability challenges in  the event of an emergency.

The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) is working to establish a  nationwide dedicated network for public safety use that is intended to  foster greater interoperability, support important data transmissions, and  meet public safety officials’ reliability needs. FirstNet is working with five  jurisdictions designated as “early builder projects” of the public-safety  broadband network that are deploying local and regional public-safety  broadband networks similar to what FirstNet must do on a national  scale.

Interoperability challenges can also result from non-technical or human  factors such as a lack of coordination or not properly using interoperability  channels. Additionally, as we reported in 2016, 23 states’ responses to  our survey indicated that they have experienced interoperability difficulties  when communicating or attempting to communicate with federal partners  during disasters. For example, following Hurricane Harvey, stakeholders  with the City of Houston and Harris County reported interoperability  challenges when they were unable to communicate with members of  FEMA’s Urban Search & Rescue teams deployed to the area. However,  according to stakeholders we interviewed, they were initially unaware  these teams were operating in the area because the teams did not share  information—including the LMR channels on which they were operating— with local first responders. According to a stakeholder from the State of  Texas this was a communications coordination challenge. Stakeholders  from the City of Houston, Harris County, and the State of Texas told us  that having this information would have been useful to help coordinate  emergency response. FEMA officials told us that they were aware of this  issue, which they noted was an isolated incident, and have emphasized  to these teams the importance of sharing this information in the future.

We also found that at least one stakeholder in each of our case study  locations identified challenges due to first responders not using  interoperable LMR channels properly. Additionally, a report about the  response to the Boston Marathon bombings stated that first responders  underutilized dedicated channels or had difficulty accessing them, a  situation that limited coordination. Two stakeholders in Boston told us  that officials in the city develop a comprehensive communications plan for  major events to help allow all levels of government to better  communicate, but one of these stakeholders said there is a continued  need for training on using interoperability channels. As discussed later,  DHS offers technical assistance and grants to improve interoperability.

Based on RECCWG annual reports, our case studies, and interviews with  stakeholders, we identified: (1) an ongoing need for training and (2) the  lack of a communications component in emergency response exercises  as both challenges to emergency communications. Stakeholders in each  of our three case study locations told us there is an ongoing need for  training and practice in using emergency communications equipment.  Additionally, this issue was raised in a recent RECCWG annual report  and a report about the response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.  Stakeholders in two of our case study locations, Los Angeles and Boston,  told us that first responders continue to need training after investments  are made in new interoperable communications equipment, posing an  ongoing need for training. In addition, stakeholders from all three of our  case study locations told us that first responders need training on the  proper use of interoperability channels. For example, this gap in training  was the case during the response to the Boston Marathon bombing when  responders used their everyday channels rather than interoperable  channels. If all responders are not operating on the same channels, there  is the possibility of missing critical information. Additionally, with staff  turnover and position changes, four stakeholders told us there is a  constant need to educate first responders and other personnel. For  example, officials from one department told us that emergency  communications training is always a challenge with their approximately  10,000 personnel. Other stakeholders also told us that public safety  officials must know how to properly use new technologies and that  evolving technology requires additional training. OEC officials said that  their training and technical assistance has evolved to address new and  emerging technologies such as broadband. For example, OEC’s current  technical assistance catalog contains new or revised offerings on topics  related to Next Generation 911 such as the technical and procedural  challenges associated with integrating digital communications into these  911 systems. OEC officials told us they work with various emergency  communications stakeholders, such as state and local agencies, to stay  informed about training needs.

Exercises—which can be planned and carried out at the federal, state, or  local level—are important in preparing for emergencies because they can  expose challenges, which can then be addressed before an actual  emergency, according to stakeholders we interviewed. According to OEC  officials, these exercises are intended to simulate large-scale disasters or  emergencies and bring participants (including first responders, state and  federal officials, hospital personnel, etc.) together to test equipment and actual response procedures. According to DHS’s Interoperability  Continuum, implementing effective exercise programs to practice  communications interoperability is essential for ensuring that the  technology works and that first responders are able to effectively  communicate. One stakeholder in Houston told us that planned events  prior to Hurricane Harvey revealed that many first responders in the area  were not comfortable using interoperability channels because they did not  typically operate on these channels or did not need to use radios for their  daily work. After planned events (such as the 2017 Super Bowl), they  gained experience and familiarity, and were able to use these  interoperability channels without incident during the response to  Hurricane Harvey, according to this stakeholder.

According to RECCWG annual reports in 2015 and 2016, major  emergency-response exercises often do not include a large  communications component, which can limit the preparedness of state  and local public safety officials. Additionally, the 2016 RECCWG annual  report states that in a large-scale disaster, compromised or insufficient  communications can have dramatic effects on response efforts. All 10  RECCWGs agreed on the need to test communications during  emergency response exercises, and two of these groups cited this need  as a specific priority for the upcoming year. FEMA officials told us they  are working to build scenarios into exercises that will also help to test  communications. Three stakeholders told us that during large-scale  events, there is still too often an assumption that emergency  communications systems will remain operational in the event of an  emergency. The stakeholders said exercises are more beneficial and  realistic when communications personnel are included in exercise  planning and the exercises include a communications component. OEC  officials told us that communications are frequently either omitted from or  only notionally included in exercises and assessments, and because of  this situation, OEC offers training on planning exercises. As discussed  later, DHS offers technical assistance to help address the above  challenges related to training and exercises.

Based on RECCWG annual reports and interviews with emergency  communication stakeholders we identified challenges in obtaining funding  for acquiring and maintaining interoperable equipment and systems, as  well as for travel and training. For example, a recent RECCWG annual  report noted that determining funding sources to address interoperability  needs was a challenge. This report raised concerns that two federal  grant programs that jurisdictions previously used to address  interoperability needs are no longer funded. Stakeholders told us that  DHS grant programs have been important for emergency  communications projects in their regions. They also noted that within a  jurisdiction many projects compete for a limited amount of funding. For  example, one stakeholder explained that even after his jurisdiction used a  DHS grant to purchase a new LMR system, the jurisdiction must continue  to seek funding to upgrade and maintain the system. Further, one recent  RECCWG annual report identified funding limitations as causing many  states and agencies to make trade-offs among capabilities essential for  operable and interoperable communications—such as deciding whether  to upgrade equipment or systems. As existing communications systems  and equipment continue to age or become obsolete, these trade-offs put  the agencies at an increasing risk of not being able to effectively  exchange communications during an event response, according to this  recent RECCWG annual report.

Additionally, leaders from all 10 RECCWGs also told us funding was  currently a challenge to emergency communications in their region. For  example, half (10 of 20) of these group cited limited funding to upgrade or  replace equipment as a challenge in their region. According to a leader in  one region that identified funding as a major challenge, many entities  within the region need funding for this purpose. They noted that efforts to  find alternative funding sources have not been successful and that as  emergency communications technology evolves it will grow increasingly  difficult for first responders to keep pace with the changes. Likewise,  representatives from one public safety association told us that  maintaining interoperable communications is a challenge due to the  expense of new radios and software. As a result, they noted that  jurisdictions, particularly those in less populated areas, might decide to  purchase less costly equipment that is not interoperable. Such purchases  can result in emergency communications challenges. The leader of one  RECCWG told us that due to consistent budget shortfalls over the past  several years, one state in the region has deferred maintenance of  communications infrastructure. This deferral is expected to create more  expensive problems in the future.

Leaders from 5 of the 10 RECCWGs told us they have also experienced  funding challenges related to travel or training. For example, one regional  group leader told us that funding is a challenge because funding shortfalls  prevent personnel from attending courses that would increase their  knowledge of equipment and new technologies. Another regional group  leader told us that funding is a challenge in that travel money is very  limited. Given the large geographic area covered by this RECCWG, it is  expensive for group members to travel to meetings, inhibiting participation  and information sharing at RECCWG meetings.

Stakeholders Indicated DHS’s Technical Assistance and Grants Have Enhanced Emergency Communications in Their Regions

Technical assistance, including guidance and training, is one of OEC’s  main responsibilities, and while FEMA does provide certain technical  assistance, it is not the agency’s primary responsibility. These OEC and  FEMA efforts are intended help address emergency communications  challenges, including those discussed above.

OEC offers various types of technical assistance, such as workshops  and assessments to help participants strengthen their  communications plans and governance structures, as well as a  seminar to help participants incorporate communications into  emergency response exercises. According to OEC officials, they have  delivered more than 2,000 technical-assistance-training courses and  workshops since OEC was created in 2007. In addition, OEC has  developed other resources, such as a toolkit for managing emergency  communications at planned events such as the Super Bowl.  According to OEC officials, they have a technical assistance budget of  approximately $9 million per year, and OEC delivers this assistance at  no cost to the requesting state or territory. OEC also has 11 subject  matter experts located across the country who help jurisdictions with  their communications programs and resources. These individuals  seek to build partnerships across different levels of government and  the private sector and are involved with their respective RECCWGs.

FEMA offers training related to emergency communications, such as  various courses on emergency management topics. FEMA also has  10 regional emergency communications coordinators who are  responsible for providing assistance on an as-needed basis to their  respective regions and coordinating FEMA’s tactical communications  support during a disaster or emergency. These coordinators also  support the RECCWGs.

OEC and FEMA jointly provide training to first responders and other  public safety officials to prepare them to act as communications unit  leaders.  OEC also provides training for other specialized  communications support roles. The communications unit is part of a  standardized organizational emergency response structure called the  Incident Command System. When a disaster or emergency occurs,  the communications unit is responsible for managing the operational  and technical aspects of communications. For example, one of the  unit leader’s tasks includes developing a plan to coordinate the radio  frequencies used by first responders, to help ensure interoperability.  The unit may also include a communications technician who provides  the technical skills to implement the required equipment and systems.  OEC trained more than 8,000 individuals between 2007 and August  2017 to serve in communications unit positions, according to OEC  information.

While stakeholders continue to face a range of emergency  communications challenges, they are generally satisfied with DHS’s  technical assistance to help address them. Specifically, nearly all the  stakeholders we contacted (36 of 41) were generally satisfied with  technical assistance from OEC, FEMA, or both. In addition, in 2016 we  reported that all states had received OEC technical assistance and that  almost all were satisfied with the support they received from OEC.

When asked about the general topic of DHS technical assistance, more  than half (25 of 41) of stakeholders we interviewed said that training for  communications unit positions was useful in advancing emergency  communications capabilities in their jurisdictions. OEC and FEMA also  employ a “train-the-trainer” approach for the communications unit-leader  course. Houston-area stakeholders told us that over 1,000 local  personnel across the state had received communications unit training and  that the area now has a large number of local trainers. Five stakeholders  we interviewed for our Houston case study praised this training and said it  was critical in preparing communications personnel to respond to  Hurricane Harvey. Specifically, one stakeholder who served as a  communications unit leader during Hurricane Harvey told us that this  training prepared him to develop an effective interoperable radio  communications plan for the storm. This individual also said that first  responders who came to assist from outside the region often brought their  own communications unit leaders with them, and because this training is  consistent nationwide, the outside groups knew how the response effort  would be organized and whom to call about which radio frequencies to  use. However, a stakeholder from the Los Angeles area told us that while  having the communications unit train itself was useful, it was insufficient  without opportunities to practice the skills in real-life situations, a  challenge that other stakeholders also noted in a recent RECCWG annual  report. Based on feedback from state and local personnel, OEC is  assisting states with establishing policies and procedures for their  communications unit resources, including a process to demonstrate skills  required for these specialized positions.

While stakeholders are generally satisfied with technical assistance,  many (19 of 41) stakeholders said their jurisdictions would still benefit  from additional technical assistance, aligning with a challenge we  identified earlier regarding the need for training. Four stakeholders told us  that OEC adapted technical assistance offerings to the needs of their  jurisdictions. OEC officials told us that they customize technical  assistance as needed—for example, when providing communications- planning support to a local jurisdiction, OEC will collect local agencies’  policies and facilitate a discussion with stakeholders to determine the best  overall approach. A stakeholder in Texas said that OEC’s technical  assistance—including communications-focused exercises and support  with developing a statewide interoperability plan—had helped to advance  capabilities in the state. Another stakeholder told us that FEMA’s training  has been critical in helping tribal nations build emergency-management  programs, including providing an introduction to emergency  communications. When asked about their experiences with technical  assistance, six stakeholders specifically told us they had benefited from  OEC’s support with communications planning or coordination for special  events, such as the Super Bowl. Each state or territory can request up to  five offerings per year from OEC’s technical assistance catalog, and OEC  officials told us that, given their available resources, they can generally  fulfill about 60–70 percent of requests each year.

DHS administers several grant programs to help address emergency  communications challenges. Three programs provided the majority of  DHS’s grant funding aimed at improving emergency communications from fiscal year 2011 to 2016, based on our analysis of data from FEMA’s  Grants Reporting Tool. FEMA administers these three grant programs,  which are intended to support a wide range of emergency response  capabilities, one of which is operational communications.

Urban Area Security Initiative: Assists high-threat, high-density urban  areas in efforts to build and sustain the capabilities necessary to  prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts  of terrorism. This assistance can include building, sustaining, and  enhancing emergency preparedness activities, including emergency  communications interoperability.

State Homeland Security Program: Assists state, local, tribal, and  territorial preparedness activities that address high-priority  preparedness gaps across all emergency preparedness capabilities— including communications to prevent, protect against, respond to, and  recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

Emergency Management Performance Grant: Assists state, local,  tribal, and territorial emergency-management agencies in preparing  for “all hazards,” and can be used to support all capabilities, including  communications. Each state and territory and the District of Columbia  receive a base amount of funding, and the program requires  recipients to commit matching funds.

According to FEMA’s data, which is reported by recipients, between fiscal  years 2011 and 2016 more than $700 million in grants were provided to  support emergency communications, as described in table 1.

According to FEMA officials, these funding amounts are approximate  totals because the recipient-reported data have certain limitations. For  example, the information may be incomplete if the recipient does not  submit required biannual reports. In addition, FEMA officials told us that  recipients identify which core capability the funding was used to support,  but the data might not capture all aspects of a project because only one  core capability may be selected at a time. FEMA officials told us that  FEMA tracks funds obligated and dispersed at the overall grant level and  uses the recipient-reported data to have a general understanding of how  funding supports emergency communications and other capabilities.  According to FEMA officials, recipient-reported data is sufficient for that  general purpose. We have a substantial body of work related to DHS’s  grant program management and in 2013 recommended that FEMA  make improvements in collecting and validating performance data for  certain grant programs.  FEMA implemented these improvements in  2017. FEMA officials told us they have also initiated a multi-year effort to  improve the oversight and monitoring of grants and support data analytics  for improved efficiencies—called the Grant Management Modernization  program—which is scheduled to be operational in 2020. Given these  ongoing actions, we did not assess FEMA’s grants management efforts  as part of this review.

Some state and local stakeholders told us that DHS grants (outlined in  table 1 above) have allowed them to build and enhance communications  capabilities that their jurisdictions would otherwise lack funding to  address. These grants have been used to, among other things, build  interoperable communications networks and purchase equipment, for  example:

Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds were used to enhance a  regional radio system in the Houston area. According to stakeholders,  the system helped the region respond to Hurricane Harvey because it  enhanced interoperability in the Houston area, so that first responders  from multiple counties and agencies were all using the same system  to communicate. Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds have also  been used to help build the LMR component of an interoperable  communications network in Los Angeles County.

Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Program  grants funds were used to build a large radio cache in Massachusetts,  with over 400 multi-band radios that can be quickly deployed into the  field to support both emergency and planned events across multiple  jurisdictions. One stakeholder told us that these radios are requested  on a regular, often weekly, basis.

Emergency Management Performance grants have been used to  establish and enhance state and local emergency operations centers  across the country. These centers are activated during disasters and  emergencies and provide a single location for leaders to coordinate  the response effort, including the coordination of communications.

RECCWGs Have Enhanced Capabilities in Several Ways, but Collaboration across Regions Is Limited

As part of the Post-Katrina Act, Congress established the RECCWGs to  help address emergency communications issues, such as a lack of  equipment interoperability. We found the RECCWGs have enhanced  emergency communications capabilities through relationship building and  information sharing—with demonstrated benefits. Although these groups  have had successes, they still face challenges, such as ensuring  continuous and broad participation and increasing the national visibility of  the groups. Further, collaboration across these groups is limited. Without  ways to collaborate across the regions, RECCWG members may be  missing opportunities to share best practices and leverage the experience  of their counterparts nationwide.

RECCWGs Facilitate Relationship Building and Information Sharing, with Demonstrated Benefits

The RECCWGs bring together communications stakeholders from  different levels of government and the private sector, and all of these  groups have identified relationship building as a major benefit, according  to our analysis of RECCWG annual reports and interviews with these  groups’ leaders. Members expand their professional networks and build  relationships within their regions when they gather for in-person meetings  and participate in regular conference calls. For example, a leader of one  RECCWG told us that through these interactions, members learn about  each other’s areas of expertise and also make connections in the region.  A leader of another RECCWG told us that his members were more willing  to call on each other for assistance because of the strong working  relationships they had developed in the group. The relationships  established in these groups have facilitated cooperation and resulted in  more effective emergency response efforts, as described below.

All of the RECCWGs share best practices and lessons learned, according  to the groups’ annual reports and the leaders of these groups. Information  sharing takes a variety of forms, including discussing lessons learned  after disasters or other major events, sharing experiences with new  technologies, and presenting information from federal and private industry  partners. For example, the Region X group reported in 2016 that  members shared lessons learned after declared disasters in several  states. Further, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report, in Region  VII, members from Nebraska shared their experiences with expanding  their statewide LMR system. This expansion helped members in Iowa  construct their own system in a more timely and cost-effective way.  RECCWG members share information about communications resources  within their regions; that information can be deployed when a disaster or  emergency occurs. For example, nearly all of these groups (9 of 10)  groups have or are working to compile information about communications  assets, such as equipment and personnel. Information sharing about  communications resources has been used to facilitate response efforts,  as described below. The groups have helped promote awareness of  developments in federal programs, such as the public safety broadband  network, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report. The groups also  provide a forum for FEMA to understand the regions’ capabilities, needs,  and vulnerabilities. According to FEMA officials, they use this information  to develop regional plans that help FEMA assist the regions more  effectively during a disaster.

In several instances, RECCWG members have reported assisting each  other during disasters and emergencies, drawing on the relationships and  information sharing fostered by the groups. For example, a member of the  Region I group, which includes New England, told us that prior to his  group’s formation, emergency communications stakeholders from  different levels of government in that region did not meet. However,  because of the relationships that regional group helped to build, these  stakeholders now meet regularly to develop communications plans for  large planned events and have collaborated to provide communications  support in responding to the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013,  Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and other events both within and outside of the  region. According to a leader of the Region X group, relationships  developed in the group were also helpful in responding to wildfires in  Washington State in 2014 and 2015. In addition, after Hurricane Matthew  and a major flood in 2016, Region IV group members drew on  relationships developed in the RECCWG to coordinate support from other  states in the region to assist South Carolina, according to a leader of that  group. As discussed earlier, nearly all of these groups (9 of 10) have or  are working to share information about resources that can be deployed  during a disaster. At least three regions have consulted these resource  compilations during recent disasters. For example, according to the 2016  RECCWG annual report, this information was used during Hurricanes  Hermine and Matthew in 2016, severe storms and flooding in Minnesota  and Wisconsin in 2016, and severe winter storms in New England in  2015.

Several RECCWGs have or are working to develop technical solutions to  enhance interoperability within or bordering their regions, according to the  groups’ annual reports, the leaders of these groups, and FEMA officials.  For example, the group in Region V connected disparate statewide radio  systems in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, so that responders would  be able to communicate in the event of a regional disaster or emergency.

The Region VIII group, which includes the border states of Montana and  North Dakota, is working to develop solutions to enhance interoperability  among states in the region and with Canada. After the Deepwater  Horizon oil spill in 2010, the Region IV group, which includes the  southeastern states along the Gulf of Mexico, developed a  communications network that is still in place and could be used for other  events affecting the Gulf Coast. In 2011 this network was modified to  connect to Arkansas and Louisiana’s statewide communications  networks, and was successfully tested during a multi-state hurricane  evacuation exercise. The Region IV group is also working to identify  technology to directly connect emergency operations centers in the  southeastern states to coordinate assistance and evacuations when other  communications methods fail, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual  report.

RECCWGs have addressed or are working to address several policy  concerns based on joint positions developed within their groups,  according to the groups’ annual reports, interviews with RECCWG  leaders, and FEMA officials. For example, RECCWG efforts led to  changes in the National Telecommunications and Information  Administration manual allowing for state and local use of federal  interoperability channels, according to FEMA officials. In addition, the  Region I group raised concerns regarding an interoperability challenge  with Department of Defense (DOD) first responders, resulting in a  nationwide rule change for DOD’s land mobile radios used for domestic  response activities. After a corporate jet crashed at Hanscom Air Force  Base in Massachusetts in 2014, local first responders could not  communicate with the Hanscom Fire Department because the base’s  radio programming policies did not permit the use of interoperable radio  channels. The RECCWG subsequently collaborated with DOD and other  federal agencies on an initiative to program DOD radios with national  interoperability channels. In addition, during a Region VI group meeting,  members learned that multiple states were experiencing a common  problem with the use of national interoperability channels. They found that  in multiple areas, local entities were using these channels for day-to-day  operations, meaning they could not be reliably used during disaster and  emergency situations because first responders experienced interference  on these interoperability channels. In February 2017, the Region VI group  raised its concerns to the Federal Communications Commission, which  had licensed these channels to local entities for use on a secondary  basis, and the group continues to work on addressing this issue. FEMA  officials told us that the participation and involvement of federal agencies  in the RECCWGs has been critical in addressing policy changes.

Although the RECCWGs have cited several achievements, they have  ongoing challenges, such as ensuring broad, continuous participation and  establishing national visibility for the groups, according to their annual  reports and interviews with group leaders and other selected group  members. Various factors can make participation in these groups difficult.  Participation is on a volunteer basis, in addition to members’ regular work  responsibilities, and some groups cover large geographic areas. Leaders  or members from four RECCWGs told us their groups have had turnover  in membership, such as when individuals move to other positions or  retire. FEMA officials told us that this turnover is a challenge shared  across the RECCWGs. In the 2016 RECCWG annual report, many of  these groups reported progress in broadening and diversifying their  membership. For example, 7 of 10 groups added state and local 911  representatives to their membership, and nearly all saw an increase in  participation from cellular providers. However, four of the groups identified  challenges with tribal participation in 2016, and all 10 groups reported that  they have continued outreach to tribal nations in their respective regions.  A representative from a tribal emergency-management organization told  us that time and resource demands can affect the level of engagement  from tribal members, because emergency response personnel for tribal  nations often have many other primary responsibilities.

The activity level and achievements also vary across the 10 RECCWGs,  according to our analysis of the groups’ reports, as well as interviews with  group leaders, selected group members, FEMA officials, and other  stakeholders. As noted earlier, each group determines its own activities.  Stakeholders we interviewed told us that some regions have very active  groups with many achievements, while other RECCWGs meet less  frequently and have had fewer achievements. For example, stakeholders  from Region I told us that they meet on a monthly basis and collaborate  frequently outside of formal meetings. On the other hand, a leader from  another region said that his group has not been very active in recent  years. According to the 2016 RECCWG annual report, that group did not  have any formal meetings in 2016, and instead stakeholders worked  together through other coordination groups in the members’ states and  territories. We also found that the emergency communications  stakeholders’ awareness of the activities of the RECCWGs can vary. For  example, two stakeholders told us they are interested in regional  collaboration but were not aware that these groups existed. In addition,  four other stakeholders we interviewed knew about the groups in their  respective regions, but they told us the groups’ activities were limited or  they were not aware of what the group had done.

The RECCWGs have identified other issue areas they are working to  address. For example, almost all of these groups (9 of 10) are working to  improve the information that states, private sector partners, and others  share about communications resources that can be deployed during  disasters or emergencies, according to the 2016 RECCWG annual report.  In addition, a member of one RECCWG told us it can be challenging to  address policy concerns when federal agencies they contact are not  aware of the groups or their purpose. This stakeholder said that it was  important to increase the national visibility of the groups in order to  improve their effectiveness. Increasing national collaboration, as  discussed below, could be one way to address this concern.

Collaboration across RECCWGs Has Been Limited

OEC’s National Emergency Communications Plan—which OEC views as  the nation’s strategic plan for this area—established a vision of enabling  the nation’s emergency response community to communicate and share  information across all levels of government, disciplines, and jurisdictions.  This plan has prioritized enhancing coordination among stakeholders,  processes, and planning activities across the emergency response  community. In addition, our previous work has found that collaboration  can be used to address a range of purposes, including information  sharing and communication.  In this work, we identified key  considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms,  such as ensuring that all relevant participants have been included.  Federal internal control standards also speak broadly to the importance of  communicating to achieve an entity’s objectives.

FEMA has taken some steps to encourage collaboration among  RECCWG leaders, but broader collaboration across regions remains  limited. RECCWGs have periodically shared information with their  counterparts in other regions, but according to our analysis of the groups’  annual reports and interviews with group leaders, these exchanges  primarily involve one region working with another on an ad-hoc basis. For  example, according to one group member in Region VI, members of other  RECCWGs reached out to him to learn more about communications  successes and challenges during Hurricane Harvey. FEMA has taken  some steps to encourage information sharing and collaboration among  the RECCWGs. Specifically, FEMA encouraged the establishment of a  monthly conference call for RECCWG co-chairs in 2015, and its Disaster  Emergency Communications division distributes a biweekly newsletter to  RECCWG members, according to FEMA officials. However, there is not  an ongoing mechanism for communication across all of the regions so  that the full membership can effectively share information with each other  and collaborate. While the co-chair conference calls are intended to  enhance collaboration across the regions, the meetings do not involve the  broader membership of the groups.

Most RECCWG leaders (15 of 20), as well as 9 other stakeholders, told  us that more collaboration across the groups was needed. For example,  four stakeholders explained to us that if a RECCWG in another part of the  country has identified best practices it would be useful to share the  information more broadly. Three other stakeholders who said their groups  were less active told us it would still be helpful to receive information  about what other groups are doing to enhance emergency  communications. Stakeholders suggested several possible methods,  such as an in-person conference or a national-level working group that  functions using virtual or other means.

FEMA officials have considered ways to enhance collaboration but they  face certain limitations. Specifically, FEMA officials told us they had  considered an in-person national conference, but FEMA’s budget for the  groups was limited and a national conference would be too resource- intensive. FEMA officials also explained that they facilitate the groups, but  the groups are run by their members. According to FEMA officials, they  have tried some ways to enhance collaboration across the RECCWGs,  such as by encouraging the groups to extend meeting invitations to other  regions and use online portals for collaboration. Developing and  implementing an appropriate ongoing mechanism for collaboration may  be a worthwhile investment because it could further enhance the  RECCWGs’ efforts to improve emergency communications. Reaching a  consensus with RECCWG members may help FEMA determine options  that are both useful for the membership and feasible, given FEMA’s  resource constraints. In the role as a facilitator for RECCWGs FEMA is  well positioned to lead this effort.

Without ways for all members of the RECCWGs, not just the groups’  leaders, to collaborate across regions, members may be missing  opportunities to share best practices and leverage the knowledge and  experience of their counterparts throughout the nation. For example,  lessons learned from Hurricane Harvey and other natural disasters in  2017—such as how first responders used interoperability channels  effectively—may not be shared across all of the regions without additional  methods for collaboration. Further, several of these groups are working to  address similar challenges and priorities, as discussed above. For  example, nearly all of the groups want to improve the way information  about emergency communications resources is shared in their regions, so  that these resources can be better leveraged during disasters and  emergencies. Some of the RECCWGs have explored ways to better  leverage these resources, but in the absence of methods to exchange  information more broadly, RECCWGs may not be able to easily share  what has been successful for their regions.

When disasters strike or emergencies arise, they can span multiple  jurisdictions, making coordination and collaboration critically important for  effective emergency response. The RECCWGs established by the Post- Katrina Act have enhanced emergency communications within their  regions. While the relationship building and information sharing within  these groups have contributed to benefits at the regional level, nationwide  collaboration among the groups has been more limited. Such  collaboration could help the groups address common challenges by  providing a way to improve the sharing of best practices and lessons  learned and to allow members to leverage the knowledge and experience  of their counterparts to improve emergency communications capabilities  in their regions and nationwide. Therefore, it could benefit FEMA to work  with these groups to reach consensus on and to implement a mechanism  for accomplishing cross-regional collaboration. A concerted effort  focusing on these groups’ collaboration needs, while also considering  FEMA’s resource constraints, could help FEMA and regional stakeholders  determine an appropriate mechanism for collaboration moving forward.

The Administrator of FEMA should work with RECCWG members to  reach consensus on and implement an ongoing mechanism to encourage  nationwide collaboration across these groups, considering the costs of  one or more suitable methods, such as a national-level working group  that uses virtual or other means of coordination, as appropriate.  (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS  provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix I. In written  comments, DHS concurred with our recommendation and provided an  attachment describing the actions it would take to implement the  recommendation. DHS noted that FEMA is committed to increased  collaboration among RECCWGs to coordinate multi-state efforts and  measure progress on and improving survivability, sustainability, and  interoperability of communication at the regional level and nationwide.  Separately FEMA provided technical comments that we incorporated as  appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, 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 to the Secretary of  Homeland Security and appropriate congressional committees. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or members of 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. Major contributors to this report  are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, David Sausville (Assistant  Director); Aaron Kaminsky (Analyst in Charge); Melissa Bodeau; Josh  Ormond; Kate Perl; Cheryl Peterson; and Kelly Rubin made key  contributions to this report.

During emergencies, first responders need to be able to communicate with each other—even across jurisdictions. After Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed a law to help first responders do just that. The law created working groups to improve regional collaboration. Each group has members from different levels of government, as well as from the private sector.

We found that these groups have generally worked well at the regional level—members shared information and assisted each other during emergencies. However, we recommended that FEMA encourage nationwide collaboration among the groups.