Official website of the Department of Homeland Security
Blog
Blog
September 24, 2015
11:52 am
Governance is a critical component of successful interoperable emergency communication. The SAFECOM and NCSWIC members value effective governance, but recognize it as one of the greatest challenges that face emergency communications officials. There are many complexities behind establishing and maintaining effective governance bodies, especially in the constantly evolving communications landscape. For example, obtaining sufficient funding to support the efforts of the governance bodies or ensuring the governance bodies are forward looking to proactively shape impacts of technological advancements among the first responder community. The state of governance structures across the country greatly varies, creating the need for proven recommendations to assist jurisdictions to establish and mature their governance practices.
The Governance Guide for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Emergency Communications Officials (Governance Guide) is a tool for public safety professionals at all levels of government and disciplines to use in assessing, establishing, and sustaining effective emergency communications governance. Developed with direct input from a wide array of responders across the country, this tool comprehensively lays out governance challenges, best practices, and recommendations. While none of the information provided is intended to be restrictive or required, the broad approach allows emergency communications officials to specifically select and apply the recommendations that is most appropriate for each of their specific situation or challenge.
The Governance Guide Working Group met between December 2014 and July 2015, and supported case studies with over 20 states, cities, and regions across the country to compile information on successful, repeatable models of governance that can be emulated in other states, localities, tribal nations, and territories. Thus, these best practices and recommendations are real-world solutions to real problems. Thank you to members of the Working Group for your contribution to this Guide as well as those that participated in the case study discussions.
SAFECOM and NCSWIC intend for this document to be widely used to successfully assist and support emergency communications officials across the country implement effective governance in the years to come.
For more information on the Governance Guide, please refer to: http://www.dhs.gov/safecom/governance.
Respectfully on behalf of:
Steve Proctor, SAFECOM Chair
Michael Varney, NCSWIC Chair
Charlie Sasser, Governance Guide Working Group Chair
August 3, 2015
2:17 pm
Dorie Chassin and Tim Runfola
Office of Emergency Communications, Department of Homeland Security
The ability to communicate and share information across jurisdictions and disciplines is vital for public safety personnel. However, during major events, such as natural disasters, traditional landline telephone circuits and cellular phone networks often become congested.
As a result, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) provides the following services to federal, state, local, territorial and tribal emergency personnel, as well as industry personnel, to ensure ongoing communications under all circumstances: Government Emergency Telecommunications Services (GETS), Wireless Priority Services (WPS), and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP). SAFECOM and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC) utilize emerging technologies such as these to improve the way emergency response communications is handled during major events.
Successful call completion rates during large scale events, such as the Super Bowl and the Boston Marathon bombing, have shown these services drastically improve response operations. By familiarizing themselves with these services and implementing them when necessary, government leaders and emergency personnel will be better able to ensure they have access to reliable, resilient communications when they are needed most. Read the full article, “Priority Telecommunications Services for First Responders” on the Technology Resources page to learn more.
May 22, 2015
2:00 pm
Chief Gerald R. Reardon
City of Cambridge Massachusetts
I bet many of you don’t realize that the T-Band has over a 40-year history of use in the Metro Boston public safety market. It has allowed for interoperability that prior to the T-Band waiver was not an attainable goal. Let me explain.
In order to fully understand the context of T-Band spectrum use in the Boston Metro Area, one has to go back to a time in the 1970’s when communication equipment was not digitally tuned and the channel spread that could be used in a radio was barely 1 MHz. These technical limitations, in general, led fire service agencies and police to use T-Band channels. However, several major incidents of unrest as a result of student demonstrations, rioting, and even bombings in Harvard Square in the late 1960s and early 1970s were the real impetus for the Boston Market to use the T-Band spectrum. These events required numerous police agencies to assist in controlling the unrest, and it quickly became clear to all in communications that a new strategy was necessary[1].
These events helped launch the Boston Area Police Emergency Radio Network (BAPERN) in the 1970’s. Following the creation of BAPERN, the T-Band (Television channels 14 and 16) was utilized under waivers approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). BAPERN primarily used T-Band channel 14, which is 470-476 MHz, and numerous law enforcement communities in the Metro Boston area moved to that spectrum in order to be compatible with the network. Fire service agencies used T-Band channel 16, which is the 482-488 MHz spectrum. Furthermore, MetroFire, an association of 34 cities and towns who are part of the fire mutual aid compact around Greater Boston, adopted these channels for mutual aid, and similar to law enforcement, fire departments started migrating to the 483 MHz T-Band spectrum.
All of the local public safety operational channels that migrated took years to accomplish due to funding issues. Many departments had not converted due to financial issues, but, more importantly, lack of spectrum as the T-Band channels quickly filled.
After the devastating events of September 11, 2001 (9-11), the public safety community, again, realized we still had limitations in the goal of interoperability. A new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was enacted, and the Metro Boston Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) was established shortly thereafter. Within this realm, the Communications Interoperability Subcommittee (CIS) was created. But yet again, we were out of the Public Safety spectrum needed to enhance our region’s interoperability needs.
In 2007, the FCC granted a 337(c) waiver to use approximately 70 Part 22 UHF channels. As the premise of the waiver was to establish a more pervasive fire/police/EMS-interoperable network in the Boston Metro area, there were a number of site modifications proposed to deploy the network and reach a greater number of agencies. These changes were coordinated through the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and submitted to the FCC. This resulted in 72 additional T-Band channels for the Metro Boston area that consisted of 32 matched repeater pairs and 6 simplex channels. The channels were used to expand BAPERN (Law), MetroFire (Fire), EMS, and numerous local departments within the Metro Boston UASI who were still operating on VHF channels and needed to be upgraded to UHF.
The Metro Boston region has expended tens of millions of dollars on equipment and infrastructure, and has developed a common interoperable channel plan that is consistent with our public safety partners. The greater Metro Boston area has over 200 licensees on the T-Band spectrum, many of which are system licenses with multiple channels. To re-locate all of the public safety users operating on T-Band at this time would reverse progress and diligent work achieved over more than forty years.
There simply is not enough spectrum available to re-locate all of the public safety entities.
At the same time, the region has embarked on a Metro Boston 700MHz multisite simulcast Project-25 digital trunk overlay system. This system will allow additional command and control, as well as the ability to incorporate all the 800 MHz trunk users. Presently, it is a seven-site system, but plans call for an eventual 10-to-12 site system.
A common communications IP-core trunk controller was also established in Massachusetts. The project utilized Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant funding for the UASI zone. Two sites, geographically separated in the state, now control virtually all of the trunked radio users in the Commonwealth; we also continue to add console sites and regional centers that further strengthen our statewide radio interoperability.
We fully appreciate the Federal government’s support in enacting FirstNet, a nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network that is essential to providing both the present and future needs for our nation’s first responders to effectively deal with major events. However, responses to the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, a tragic event, highlighted not only the strength of our city but the strength our public safety land mobile radio networks as well.
Time and funding cannot overcome a lack of common available spectrum to replace forty years of building true interoperability in our region. The Metro Boston region has successfully dealt with numerous major communications events over the years, and we have a common regional channel plan that consists of over 6,000 radios carried by Police, Fire, and EMS. Each year, we strive for improvement, and each year, members from the region, mutual aid districts, and the Commonwealth work hard to make this seemingly impossible endeavor come to fruition.
To undo over forty years of diligent, battle-tested, and proven successes marked by our interoperability system—a system built on the T-Band spectrum—would not be in the interest of public safety or citizens of the constituency that we protect. To do so, would be to dismantle a success story that most strive to achieve.
For more information regarding the T-Band see The T-Band Giveback document created by SAFECOM and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC).
[1] Law enforcement agencies ran the gamut of the allowable spectrum at the time. Low band 30-50 MHz, VHF 147-160 MHZ, and UHF 460-470 MHz were all used by various agencies. Both Boston Police and Cambridge Police used 460 MHz channels, but in spite of the compatibility, and band allocation, the radios were still crystal-controlled single- and dual-channel units. Even seeing a four-channel radio was a rare commodity. A VHF Intercity Channel 158.970 was really the only common factor, and that was not present in some of the surrounding communities.
April 8, 2015
1:23 pm
Ron Hewitt, Director
Office of Emergency Communications
Department of Homeland Security
On behalf of the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2015 SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants (SAFECOM Guidance). The SAFECOM Guidance is updated annually to provide current information on emergency communications policies, eligible costs, best practices, and technical standards for State, local, tribal, and territorial grantees investing Federal funds in emergency communications projects.
Most notably, the FY 2015 SAFECOM Guidance reflects the updated National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The 2014 NECP emphasizes the need to enhance the policies, governance structures, plans, and protocols that enable responders to communicate and share information under all circumstances. It aims to maximize the use of all communications capabilities available to public safety officials—voice, video, and data—and to ensure the security of data and information exchange. To accomplish this, grantees must engage the whole community in preparedness activities. Similarly, the FY 2015 SAFECOM Guidance addresses the rapidly evolving emergency communications ecosystem and encourages grantees to support the concepts and recommendations within the 2014 NECP.
This year’s funding priorities remain consistent with previous SAFECOM Guidance releases. Grantees are encouraged to coordinate with their statewide governance and emergency communications leaders to ensure projects support the State or territory’s strategy to improve interoperable emergency communications. In addition, grantees should work with public and private entities, and across jurisdictions and disciplines, to assess needs, plan projects, coordinate resources, and improve response through cross-training and joint exercises.
The FY 2015 SAFECOM Guidance also encourages grantees to participate, support, and invest in planning activities that will help States or territories prepare for deployment of new emergency communications systems or technologies. At the same time, the SAFECOM Guidance recognizes the need to sustain current land mobile radio (LMR) systems. Grantees should continue developing plans and standard operating procedures, conducting training and exercises, and investing in standards-based equipment to sustain LMR capabilities, while concurrently planning for the deployment of new technologies.
As in previous years, OEC developed the FY 2015 SAFECOM Guidance in consultation with SAFECOM and National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators. OEC also consulted Federal partners and the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, to ensure that emergency communications policies are coordinated and consistent across the Federal Government. OEC encourages grantees to consult the SAFECOM Guidance when developing emergency communications investments, and to direct any questions to my office at oec@hq.dhs.gov.
January 30, 2015
12:40 pm
SAFECOM Members,
I hope that each of you had the best of holiday seasons and the happiest of New Years. Thank you for understanding that I was unable to attend the meetings in Norman, Oklahoma, in December. The adventure I took part in on the USS Missouri had been a year-in-the-works. My wife and I signed up to do service work for 10 days aboard the battleship to help with upkeep and maintenance of the vessel. To be there on the December 7th Pearl Harbor Day Anniversary held extra special meaning.
I am both humbled and honored to have been elected Chair of SAFECOM. It is a privilege to be associated with each one of you. You are all experts in your field who focus on public safety communications and the advancement of services and technology to support our first responder community. While we all come from different disciplines, backgrounds, and perspectives, we have focused on a common goal: to promote better use and application of technologies for the agencies and organizations we support, and be an example that will help others do the same.
A little about me: I have been a public safety communications professional since 1970, holding a variety of positions, from public safety dispatcher to director. I have been a member of SAFECOM since its inception, including the Public Safety Wireless Network effort, prior to SAFECOM. I have also served as the President of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International from 1994-1995.
My current position is Executive Director of the UCA, an independent State agency, formed in 2014 by the Utah Legislature. UCA replaced UCAN, the Utah Communications Agency Network. Our responsibilities expanded to include: Statewide 800 and VHF radio networks and the supporting sites, towers, and connectivity. We are also responsible for the State 9-1-1 Committee, 9-1-1 network, NG 9-1-1 implementation, coordination of Utah’s FirstNet efforts, and the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator’s Office.
I am grateful that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and OEC continue to support and promote SAFECOM activities. The collaborative efforts among Federal, State, and local governments, along with the numerous association representatives, create a platform to develop interoperability initiatives and technologies in support of our collective missions. The SAFECOM message, outreach, and the NECP have all been critical parts of getting the public safety communications message a higher level of visibility in the emergency response community. Communications needs and resources are recognized as the most critical part of the emergency response effort.
There is no doubt that the public safety community is in an environment of rapid change. Making sure the people and organizations SAFECOM represents are aware of those impending changes is the most important thing we can do. Providing responders with the resources to help accommodate change is critical to all of our success. I look forward to serving with each of you in 2015.
