May 2003 · Volume 85 · Number 4 

Wireless Interoperability: A Key Element of Public Safety

Ed Daley
Popular television shows and movies portray public safety officials as seamlessly coordinated in their communication and response efforts. The reality is different. When public safety agencies do communicate with each other, the information generally is shared through communications centers and involves radio operators shuffling messages back and forth between agencies, using commercial cellular services, or even sending runners. 
Measures such as these demonstrate the urgent need for public safety officials to enhance interoperability, or emergency incident responders’ ability to communicate directly with and transmit data to other emergency service personnel through mobile radios. Perhaps, not all local government administrators are familiar with wireless interoperability, but it represents a concept we all need to understand. 
What Does “Tech-Enabled” Mean?
In the past, local and state public safety agencies functioned independently of each other, with little need for coordination. When a field officer found it necessary to communicate with personnel from other agencies, it could be done through a dispatcher, who would relay information between them. 
Today, however, coordination between agencies’ is critical. The era of agencies’ being able to handle incidents independently of neighboring jurisdictions is over. Agencies must coordinate their responses, and their field officers must be able to communicate directly. This wireless interoperability is necessary during routine responses that take place every day as well as when mission-critical emergencies occur. 
During such local catastrophes as a terrorist attack or a major traffic accident, multiple agencies—including state and local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personal—respond. Unfortunately, few if any of these agencies have the capability to quickly share information directly with one another when lives and property are at risk. 
This wave of shootings demonstrated that emergency incidents often require a response from a number of local government departments and frequently involve more than one jurisdiction.
Last fall, during the sniper incidents in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., a morning shooting took place in Virginia. Personnel at the command center in Montgomery County, Maryland, had reason to believe that the sniper intended to strike again that same evening, in which jurisdiction was uncertain. Citizens throughout and beyond the Washington metropolitan area were nervous, and all were looking for a vehicle of the same specific description. 
Communities quickly reviewed their response plans and considered how public safety agencies could coordinate road closures and a search for the vehicle. The highest-priority issue revolved around notifying all personnel from a number of agencies of any incident and of the incident’s location. Law enforcement supervisors wanted to be able to seal off an incident area if a sniper shooting occurred in their jurisdiction. They suggested that officers be assigned to respond to various designated highways, instead of having all personnel respond to the incident scene. The key to this proposal would be instant notification of all personnel that a shooting had occurred and at what location. 
A police department leader in Frederick County, Virginia, identified the problem. His officers could use mobile radios to communicate with each other and with the jurisdiction’s emergency communications center (ECC). They could not, however, communicate directly with the other agencies involved in the field. Personnel were faced with the prospect of having to contact their ECC to relay messages to other ECCs, which would in turn have to notify field personnel from the second agency. 
This wave of shootings demonstrated that emergency incidents often require a response from a number of local government departments and frequently involve more than one jurisdiction. Too often, field personnel from these state, local, and volunteer agencies cannot communicate with each other directly through mobile radios. Radio equipment can be incompatible, limiting the ability of emergency service personnel to make a coordinated response to a critical incident. 
When federal agencies are involved, the need to communicate directly is magnified because of added types of equipment brought into play. Critical time is lost when field personnel are forced to relay messages through one or more ECCs to speak with other field personnel in an effort to coordinate responses. 
National Public Safety Wireless Interoperability Forum
In October 2001, the National Institute of Justice cosponsored a National Public Safety Wireless Interoperability Forum, which was attended by some 150 elected and appointed officials and public safety representatives from all levels of government. ICMA and other national organizations composed of state and local government leaders and public safety officials participated and learned about wireless interoperability problems. 
Held in Washington, D.C., one month after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the forum generated great concern for the inability of field personnel from public safety departments and emergency first responders to communicate with each other directly by mobile radio at critical times. 
The incidents discussed ranged from local accidents to such larger events as the Oklahoma City bombing and the Columbine shootings. Participants learned—from recent surveys of existing equipment used by public safety agencies, and the equipment’s capacities—that the cost to achieve wireless interoperability on a national basis would exceed $18 billion. 
Task Force and Its Mission
It was clear to forum participants that the existing lack of wireless interoperability was unacceptable in this era of rapid communications, multiagency response, and terrorist activities. 
Communication gaps identified at the World Trade Center by emergency first responders needed to be addressed. Recognizing that all levels of government must cooperate to address this challenge, 18 national associations representing state and local elected, appointed, and public safety officials formed the National Task Force on Interoperability (NTFI), consisting of 56 members. 
The National Institute of Justice offered support through meeting facilitation, outreach, and logistics. An executive committee was formed to provide leadership and organization before the first task force meeting in April 2002. The missions of the task force were to inform state and local government leaders of the benefits of interoperability and of the policy issues that had to be overcome, and to encourage partnerships among public policymakers to address interoperability issues in a more comprehensive way. 
Why Can’t We Communicate?
NTFI developed an outreach/education program that can be used by national associations and task force members to bring these critical issues to the attention of state and local government leaders and the public. First, it formed three work groups, to deal with issues involving: 1) spectrum, 2) resources, and 3) governance. 
Spectrum is a term for the usable radio frequencies allocated to the land mobile-radio systems of public safety communications. Functioning like an interstate highway, spectrum transmits electronic signals. Almost all public safety agencies use wireless radios as their primary communications mechanism; without spectrum, these radios would be useless. 
Public safety agencies were all initially assigned radio frequencies at the low end of the range. But because the growing number of agencies were assigned frequencies on an individual basis without regard for a comprehensive plan, these channels now are found on a variety of bands: high, low, very high, ultra-high, television-sharing, 700 megahertz, and 800 megahertz. 
The spectrum work group of NTFI examined the availability of spectrum for public safety agencies and the way in which it is allocated. It also reviewed spectrum regulations, commercial services spectrum, and other issues. 
Over a period of several decades, the Federal Communications Commission has assigned public safety agencies radio frequencies in 10 separate bands. This has enabled more agencies to obtain a radio frequency, but it also has created the fragmentation that exists today. The spectrum bands allocated to public safety units within a region or state can affect public safety interoperability, as can the funding and deployment decisions made by public policy decisionmakers. 
Local agencies had tended to favor the purchase and maintenance of communications equipment with independent frequencies because this practice grants them greater autonomy and because the cost of upgrading equipment to make it compatible with other local and state agencies is significantly higher than that of using an independent frequency. This situation, too, can hamper interoperability. 
The resources work group reviewed funding alternatives and sources. It investigated how the use of existing funds can be made more efficient through collaborative procurement. Savings can be achieved through local agencies’ working together or through state purchasing contracts. Emergency communications systems can be shared by two or more agencies, instead of each insisting upon remaining autonomous and not interoperable. 
Local agencies must develop a joint, comprehensive financing strategy instead of continuing to make piecemeal purchases that worsen the problem. A number of such long-term financing alternatives as lease/purchase, municipal bonds, and special taxes are available to communities that recognize the necessity of wireless interoperability. The federal government and the states can encourage interoperability by providing incentive funding through grants and low-interest financing. 
The governance work group of NTFI looked at the governance structures then in effect for public safety and communications organizations to evaluate how successful agencies had been in achieving communications interoperability. Clearly, an effective governance structure is the foundation of a successful interoperability strategy. State and local governments need to create areawide, multiagency bodies and grant them adequate powers to ensure that decisions concerning emergency communications are made in the best interest of wireless interoperability. 
The public’s need for effective and timely emergency response communications must take precedence over the turf issues and political interests of individual agencies. Multiagency boards can be formed by state directive or by local agreement. But they must have the authority to develop and implement an effective interoperability strategy. Regional agencies, which coordinate the purchases of compatible communications equipment and the resources to make these purchases, are key factors in a successful interoperability program. 
Overall, the NTFI work groups met four times in Washington and held numerous conference calls and chat-room exchanges. A final task-force report entitled Why Can’t We Talk? Interoperability—Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives: A Guide for Public Officials, accompanied by a brochure and supplemental resources, was released at a press conference on February 6, 2003. 
This report includes recommendations for all levels of government to enhance interoperability and to help ensure that emergency service personnel can properly communicate with one another in order to coordinate their responses. Members of NTFI also called on Congress to use the proceeds from the auction of public airway spectrum licenses to set up a permanent public-interest trust fund that would award grants promoting interoperability efforts. 
Why Can’t We Talk makes recommendations on spectrum needs, funding, and cooperation among all levels of government. Here are some of the major findings: 
•	Five key reasons why public safety agencies can’t communicate are that 1) a great deal of wireless equipment is aging and incompatible; 2) funding for new equipment has been limited and fragmented; 3) planning for emergency communications systems has been done from a short-term, fragmented, and limited-funding perspective; 4) state and local public agencies and governing bodies have failed to develop service programs on a cooperative and coordinated basis; and 5) overview of the assignment of radio spectrum to public safety agencies has been limited and uncoordinated. 
•	To achieve interoperability in your community, determine the types of emergencies, such as traffic accidents, that occur and who responds; which agencies need to talk to one another daily; who should be in communication in the first eight hours of an emergency; and who will need to be added to this initial group if the emergency surpasses the eight-hour period. 
•	Developing tips on how to communicate can help achieve interoperability: devise a plan for improving interoperability that includes goals and objectives; outline the problems or needs to be addressed; identify potential partners; propose a detailed budget; outline a marketing strategy; and include an operational plan that addresses how the project will be funded. 
•	As funding strategies, use shared systems that will automatically reduce the shared costs for agencies; exploit existing infrastructures; and obtain pricing information from other governmental units that have already contracted with prospective vendors. 
The recent loss of the space shuttle Columbia required emergency responders from a number of federal, state, and local agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts. Again, some personnel could not communicate with others in the field. Information and decisions had to be relayed through a large number of communications centers, and field operatives couldn’t just talk to each other directly. This incident has reminded us once again that emergency response is a multifaceted local issue involving multiple agencies that are severely hamstrung when they lack wireless interoperability. 
So What’s It to You?
Why should local government officials concern themselves with the challenges presented by the interoperability issue? The answer is quite simple: these problems affect the safety of all citizens and government officials. Many separate communications systems, owned by different government and volunteer emergency-response agencies continue to procure whatever communications systems work well with their own equipment and procedures, regardless of their ability (or inability) to communicate with other agencies. 
For More Information
Copies of the National Task Force on Interoperability materials can be found on the Web site at http://www.agileprogram.org/ntfi. For additional information, contact David Hess, DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, at 202/305-0779 or 202/305-0703; e-mail, hessd@ojp.usdoj.gov. Or contact Roberta Lesh at ICMA, 202/962-3575; e-mail, rlesh@icma.org
There are many different ways for public safety entities to fund their communications needs without having to coordinate their purchases with the other agencies they work with during emergencies. Some of the funding options require wireless interoperability with other agencies. Others do not. In numerous cases, even subunits of the same state or local government cannot communicate or transmit data directly, thanks to a lack of wireless interoperability. Local government managers and administrators need to conduct an audit of their agencies’ wireless communications equipment to ensure interoperability. They must then determine the ability of their field personnel to communicate and transmit data to other agencies that are likely to participate with them, and the need to communicate with these entities during emergency incidents. 
The NTFI report recommends that local officials convene a meeting of all stakeholders to assess the current interoperability status of their wireless communications equipment and to develop a plan for upgrading that equipment to achieve complete interoperability. Lives may be lost otherwise. 
The bottom line is that law enforcement professionals and their counterpart first responders may find their emergency efforts at cross-purposes. And this kind of failure can actually deepen tragedies. 
Task Force Participants
The National Task Force on Interoperability (NTFI) included representatives of the following 18 national associations:
•    Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) 
•    International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
•    International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
•    International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
•    Major Cities Chiefs (MCC)
•    Major County Sheriffs’ Association (MCSA)
•    United States Conference of Mayors (USCM)
•    National Association of Counties (NACo)
•    National League of Cities (NLC)
•    National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO)
•    National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD)
•    National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
•    National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA)
•    National Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
•    National Governors Association (NGA)
•    National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)
•    National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)
•    Council of State Governments (CSG) 
Ed Daley, city manager of Winchester, Virginia, and Roberta Lesh, director of police programs at the International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C., represented ICMA on the task force.
Ed Daley is city manager of Winchester, Virginia (ecd@ci.winchester.va.us).