Almost nine years after the 9/11 attacks, most people look back with admiration at the efforts of emergency responders on the scene. And rightly so — men and women from all backgrounds risked and lost their lives trying to help minimize the death toll. Yet from the ashes arose a nagging question: Why couldn’t public safety agencies communicate more effectively?
In addition to setting the stage for the global war on terrorism, 9/11 also served to spotlight the inadequacies of the communications technology used by first responders. Critical information fell on deaf ears and in one case led to a fire brigade in the north World Trade Center tower being unable to hear commands to evacuate. New York City lost 121 firefighters in the north tower that day because their radios could not receive warnings issued by the city’s police department.
Outcry demanding interoperable communications technology was loud and swift. In response, during a February 2004 speech at George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, then-Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge said the DHS had “identified technical specifications for a baseline interoperable communication system” and that if state and local agencies adopted such specifications, “by the end of 2004, most first responders will have a way to communicate with each other during a crisis, regardless of frequency or mode of communication.”
Ridge also said the DHS wanted to, “ensure that when federal money is spent, it fosters interoperability.” Billions have been spent in pursuit of this goal, including $1.8 billion in DHS grants for interoperability in 2008. But a singular question emergency personnel still face when entering a disaster situation remains — will my radio work?
Vendor Payday?
If one were to look at the huge amount of money thrown at the interoperability problem and compare that to current results, or lack thereof, an easily drawn conclusion is that technology vendors are taking grant spending but not delivering on the hardware. But few in emergency management circles believe this is simply a case of vendors jobbing the system. In fact, Harlin McEwen, chairman of the Communications and Technology Committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said interoperable communications technology has progressed as expected and that vendors are simply doing what they’re supposed to — make money.
“I don’t think that this has been a vendor giveaway,” he said. “Obviously they’re in business to make money, and the more consumers they have, the better.”
Rather, McEwen said he has seen public safety technology undergo a long overdue technology refresh, which has coincided with the push toward creating more interoperable communication networks.
Most experts like McEwen agree that the lack of interoperability in public safety communications isn’t a technology problem. The lion’s share of federal spending on interoperable communications has been directed at hardware. A June 2009 study from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), titled Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and Limited Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal Efforts, noted that “Since Sept. 11, 2001, state and local jurisdictions, as well as the private sector, have invested billions of dollars to build and enhance existing communications systems.”
The study aimed to investigate, among other things, the vulnerabilities in emergency communications systems, especially when put to the test in 9/11- and Hurricane Katrina-type scenarios.
David Wise, the GAO’s Physical Infrastructure Issues director, assisted with the study. Wise said that in his assessment, technology is evolving quickly to meet interoperability demands. It’s the agencies themselves — specifically procurement rules and refresh schedules — that hamper interoperability efforts.
The people versus technology issues are well known to anyone working in IT. Whether it’s an enterprise resource planning deployment, migration to a standard e-mail system or interoperable communications, the technology is usually ready but the users aren’t.
But public safety officials are making progress. It’s safe to say that almost every agency now realizes the importance of interoperable communication. And just as many are eager to get their hands on radios that work seamlessly with other devices. But there are a number of built-in obstacles that have yet to be overcome. As Wise explained, the sheer number of agencies that respond to an emergency — even the type of agencies that respond — can wreak havoc on efforts to build interoperable systems.
“One of the things that we talked about in our report, we noted that some first responders in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington had some frustrations with neighboring jurisdictions and just how they would communicate with each other in the event of a disaster,” Wise said. “We pointed out in the report that working cooperatively with others and reducing those tensions has become increasingly important as more jurisdictions get involved, such as public works departments, which can also be viewed as first responders. And they also have to participate in emergency communications. There are a lot of players in this and it’s just something that agencies and local and state governments, and even the federal government need to keep working at.”
Communication for Communication
The key to successful interoperable communications systems is for users themselves to communicate with one another before a disaster strikes. In Homeland Security’s Billion-Dollar Bet on Better Communications, a February 2010 paper from the Center for Public Integrity, significant time is spent investigating how little time is spent building human relationships among regional public safety agencies — to say nothing of forging bonds on a national scale. The paper noted that “One academic study of DHS grant spending found that strong planning and coordination correlated with success at creating interoperability, while simply increasing funding did not. Chicago, for instance, has received more than $220 million from the Urban Area Security Initiative grant program. Yet, in a 2007 evaluation of cities nationwide, the city earned [the] DHS’ lowest score on governance, which measured the strength of the formal agreements that provide a foundation for communications planning.”
Receive Emergency Management
Subscribe to Emergency Management
Emergency Management is the award-winning, all-hazards publication of record for emergency management, public safety and homeland security stakeholders.
Subscribe | View Digital Issues