PSWN director talks about changes
Why did you decide to look at Special Services Districts?
As we all understand, now — more than ever — communications interoperability among various elements of the public safety community is essential. As part of its ongoing effort to protect lives and property by promoting public safety communications wireless interoperability, the PSWN Program has closely studied interoperability capabilities and challenges in diverse areas of the country, ranging from the southwest border region of the United States to maritime operations in and around southeast Louisiana, to the greater metropolitan Washington, D.C., area.
We also have looked at tribal lands.
These efforts, while thorough in and of themselves, left an information gap. We didn’t have a good fix on interoperability requirements for non-governmental, non-traditional public safety providers servicing areas such as amusement parks, commuter rail lines, military installations, or the regions surrounding nuclear power plants or oil refineries.
So we decided to undertake an assessment of these areas, known as Special Services Districts (SSDs).
Interestingly, about the time the PSWN Program was completing its data collection for this study, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge gave a speech highlighting the importance of better coordination between public and private sector safety agencies. The PSWN Program was out ahead of the curve on this one.
What is a Special Services District?
For purposes of the study, we defined an SSD as a private, military, or quasi-governmental organization that employs first responders – such as security guards, emergency medical technicians, or firefighters — to manage emergency incidents in a defined area.
The common element among these SSDs is that they maintain their own internal public safety response capability.
The types of special services segments looked at for this report include amusement parks, government-contracted private fire and emergency medical services providers, hospitals, military installations, nuclear power plants, oil refineries, ports of entry, transit, and universities.
How did you conduct the study?
We analyzed communications in the SSDs by looking at four main topic areas — general demographics, public safety services provided, coordination with supporting public safety agencies, and communications. The communications area specifically addressed the type of land mobile radio (LMR) system in use, along with its age, quality, and interoperability. Our goal was to generate insights that could be used to help develop seamless, coordinated communications among providers in SSDs, and between SSD providers and governmental and other outside public safety agencies that support them.
We collected data through written surveys and personal interviews, and were able to glean a good overview of how SSDs work and communicate with other public safety organizations.
Has such a study ever been done before?
To our knowledge, this was the first study of its kind. There have been studies that have examined the working relationship between private security and governmental law enforcement, but none have focused specifically on communications. This was the first study to take a close look at communications between SSDs and other public safety agencies.
What did you find?
Although the majority of SSDs work with other public safety agencies on emergency calls on a frequent basis — and view interoperability with other public safety agencies as imperative — there are important steps some have yet to take to facilitate interoperability.
One such step would be the broader adoption of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between SSDs and public safety agencies in their local communities that specifically address communications interoperability.
About three-quarters of the SSDs we surveyed have MOUs with local agencies, but very few of these MOUs include specifics regarding communications.
One important theme that bubbled to the top is that interoperability depends on a spirit of cooperation and partnership. One of the SSDs we studied was very effective at sharing responsibility for a trunked radio system with government agencies in the region.
Across the board, there was evidence that regular meetings between SSDs and public safety agencies can dramatically improve interoperability.
Were there other important findings?
As in most of the regular service areas we have studied, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Each SSD has unique needs that lead to unique requirements with regard to the provision of public safety services and communications interoperability.
Another interesting finding was that although most SSDs have LMR systems or use LMR equipment, commercial services are widely used as a means for communicating with other agencies.
We also thought it worth noting that the lack of interoperability between SSDs and local public safety agencies is not necessarily based on technology issues — but often the result of organizational and cultural issues.
What did the report conclude?
When we looked at the data, we decided the most productive thing we could do would be to provide general directional recommendations and considerations to help SSDs improve interoperability.
We are encouraging SSDs to initiate discussions with surrounding public safety agencies regarding response and communications issues, and to maintain contact with them – through standing meetings, training sessions and awareness events.
We also recommend that SSDs and the agencies that assist them thoroughly understand respective capabilities and training.
How can MRT readers get access to this report?
Like all of our publications, this report is available on the PSWN Program Web site at www.pswn.gov.
Readers also can call our toll free line at 1-800-565-PSWN.
The report offers a great deal of valuable information, including summaries of findings for each SSD.
There also is an entire section devoted to best practices. We strongly encourage your interested readers to take a look.
FCC HOMELAND SECURITY ACTION PLAN
Partnerships with other governmental entities, with its regulated industries, and with certain trade associations are core to the FCC’s Homeland Security initiatives; FCC representatives actively participate in over 50 organizations that are concerned with Homeland Security at the international, national, state, local, or tribal level. In addition, Bureaus and Offices throughout the Commission regularly initiate actions that promote Homeland Security objectives. These objectives include protecting and facilitating rapid restoration of the nation’s communications infrastructure, promoting effective communications services for public safety, public health, and other emergency personnel, and enhancing the Commission’s own emergency response capabilities. Select elements of the current action plan, which in many cases also involve our partnerships, are as follows.
OBJECTIVE: Strengthen measures for protecting the nation’s communications infrastructure and facilitate rapid service restoration after disruption:
- Consider a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enhance the FCC’s ongoing program to promote the best practices of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC). (See attached June 27, 2003 letter from FCC Chairman Powell to Department of Homeland Secretary Ridge. Negotiations on the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding began on July 8, 2003).
- After outreach through seminars, teleconferences, publications, and web-based events, work with NRIC to develop and conduct a survey to measure the degree of industry implementation of NRIC best practices.
- Working with DHS as appropriate, initiate an outreach program to promote best practices of the Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC) at the local level, including producing informational pamphlets that media companies and their trade associations will distribute.
- Establish a series of Homeland Security informational exchanges via video-conference with foreign telecommunications regulators concerning telecommunications infrastructure and the applicability of NRIC and MSRC best practices.
- Working together with DHS’s National Communications System and with NENA, NASNA, and APCO, provide every state and local 911 administrator Telecommunications Service Priority guidance material, including enrollment materials and “Frequently Asked Questions;” increase by 100% enrollment of the nation’s 911 call centers by the end of 2003.
- Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) regarding service restoration coordination; establish an outreach program to other metropolitan areas to determine if they can benefit from service restoration plans based on the DoITT model.
- Working together with the National Congress of American Indians, other tribal organizations and leaders, and other relevant federal government agencies, develop a plan that tribes can use to assist in protecting communications infrastructure.
- Working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, review CALEA compliance by telecommunications carriers.
— FCC
