Emergency Management and Communications Interoperability

Emergency Management and Communications Interoperability

In an emergency situation, it is vitally important to have adequate communication software in place to ensure the speedy response of emergency personnel. Indeed, ideally, such systems would be free from failure and allow rescue workers to save the maximum amount of lives. The reality is however rather less than ideal, as demonstrated by the devastation of September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina. In order to remedy the situation, interoperability issues need to be addressed.

The other side of the coin is however, would such attention adversely affect local jurisdictions in terms of cost and time investments? Conversely, the research might also ask - how much importance in terms of funding can be placed upon a human life? The dichotomy created by these two questions will be addressed in this research. In order to do so, the specific concepts attached to interoperability, emergency management, and funding will be considered. Furthermore, specific emergency management issues related to 911 calls, September 11, and the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina will be used to contextualize the interoperability issue.

At the basis of the research is the question whether the implementation of the expensive 800 mHz band as a requirement has truly improved rescue operations to such an extent that it justifies the cost involved.

a. What is Emergency Management

The current concept of emergency management refers to the readiness of a nation in case of any emergency situation. Such situations may occur on either a large or small scale. Terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and accidents could broadly characterize emergencies that might befall a nation. In the United States, the 911 emergency call network is available to the public if they need assistance in an emergency.

Large organizations such as the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and, the national military, the national police force and firefighters can make themselves available to handle large-scale emergencies. According to NEMA's EM Website (2009), the history of Emergency Management can be traced back to the origins of the American nation itself. During the 19th century, local efforts were implemented to help deal with threats such as fire and disease in the growing cities and towns of the country.

These resources were not however sufficient to handle a fire that swept through Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Local resources were inadequate by far to handle response and recovery. This led to the first disaster relief legislation. This was also the first stages of federal assistance during disasters.

Civil defense in terms of emergency management became an issue during the early years of the 20th century. During these years, the industrial revolution and the concomitant technological developments resulted in weapons of increasingly destructive power. Situations such as chemical warfare and civilian bombing in Europe also brought home to the U.S. government the importance of protection against terrorist power. Hence, President Roosevelt established the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) during 1939, when the threat of war was imminent.

When World War II ended, federal emergency management increased dramatically in response to new threats such as nuclear attack and the Cold War. President Truman's Federal Civil Defense Administration, established during the late 1940s, was responsible for handling civil defense for the country and its citizens.

The 1960s saw a renewed focus upon natural disaster relief and recovery. At the time, duties pertaining to such services were separate from civil defense, and handled by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As part of HUD, the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration was created to specifically handle disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. As these efforts grew, so did the agencies involved in relief practices. An increasing amount of different agencies became involved in emergency efforts, which considerably fragmented the industry. According to NEMA (2009), as many as 100 agencies were involved in such efforts and competing for control of particular disasters.

President Jimmy Carter addressed this problem during 1979, when FEMA was established to coordinate all federal disaster relief efforts. Agencies such as the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, and several others were absorbed by FEMA. For the duration of the Cold War, FEMA's main focus was civil defense. As the war and its associated threats however recede, the focus of this protection moved back towards natural disasters.

During Hurricane Andrew, however, the Federal Emergency Management Association proved to fall far short of their protection and response requirements in Miami. Wide-scale public outcry resulted in a major overhaul of the Association from 1992. This in turn resulted in the agency becoming one of the most successful in federal history during the last years of the 20th century.

Since the terrorist attacks during September 2001, the Association has fallen back into disfavor once again. After these attacks, President Bush established the Department of Homeland Security in order to coordinate a variety of federal efforts include law enforcement, disaster preparedness and recovery, as well as more military duties such as border protection and civil defense. During 2003, FEMA was made part of the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) was established during 1974, in order to unite state directors of emergency services for the first time. As such, NEMA acts as the consolidation agency for all emergency management organizations within the United States. In 1990 it also became an affiliate organization of the Council of State Governments (CSG).

Emergencies such as the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina revealed significant shortcomings in both these Agencies. Many blame the government's budget during the office of President Bush. Significant cuts have been made to the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, making it difficult to function effectively when major disasters strike. Many critics believe that the basic reason for NEMA's and FEMA's failure during these emergencies is the lack of interoperability and adequate communication systems.

b. Interoperability

Paul Miller (2000) defines interoperability in very broad terms. He notes that the term refers to the action of actively engaging in the process of management for systems, procedures and culture in order to maximize opportunities for exchange and re-use of information, whether internally or externally. At its basis, the term therefore refers to the effective dissemination and sharing of information.

Miller identifies various forms of interoperability. The first of these is Technical Interoperability, which refers to the continued development of communication. Individual standards are to benefit the community and ensure the convergence of communication systems. Most applicable to emergency management is probably political/human interoperability and inter-community interoperability.

According to Miller (2000), political or human interoperability concerns the availability and dissemination of resources for certain purposes. In the case of disaster management, the organizations concerned, their staff, and the skills required to move resources are vital in order to make a success of rescue operations. Here communication technology is of vital importance, as will be seen later. It is important to implement adequate communication systems in order to ensure that rescue agencies and teams are dispatched within an acceptable time limit.

Inter-community interoperability refers to the blurring lines between institutions and disciplines. When large-scale emergency operations are for example required, various agencies are involved, including the military and firefighting professionals. It is therefore important that they be able to communicate adequately to ensure a high quality of integrated services. In this type of interoperability, the inter-disciplinary paradigm is also of importance. With multiple agencies that are involved in emergency operations, common solutions and partnerships should be in place before the occurrence of large-scale disasters to ensure the readiness of professionals to handle these. Such interoperability should also include the federal government itself in order to ensure effectiveness and professionalism.

II. LESSONS LEARNED

The 21st century holds several lessons for professional agencies in terms of disaster management. The two most significant of these is the 9/11 tragedy during 2001 and Hurricane Katrina during 2005. In general and on a smaller scale, it is also useful to consider the effectiveness of the 911 emergency hotline, and the subsequent dispatch of emergency services to individuals. All three these areas entail significant shortcomings in communication technologies, which have proved costly in terms of human suffering and lives.

In order to ensure a better future in terms of emergency response, it is therefore important to carefully analyze and consider the lessons that can be learned from disasters and tragedies such as these.

a. September 11, 2001

The terrorist attacks during the second half of 2001 were probably the worst in American history, and it affected emotions on a national scale. The tragedy occurred upon a multi-dimensional scale. In addition to the inevitable and immediate deaths, some mortalities could have been prevented had proper communications systems been in place.

i. Communication Failure

A report released by Adrianne Marsh (2005) reveals how inadequate the communication systems were at the time. According to the report, there were at least 15 hours of chaos and confusion following the attack. Congressman Bart Stupak, in charge of the Public Safety Interoperability Implementation Act, lays the blame for the additional tragedy of preventable deaths directly at the door of inadequate funding and consequently inadequate communication resources. According to the Congressman, there is a basic lack of interoperability across more than 80% of the United States' first responders. They are not able to communicate with each other, and are therefore also not able to launch adequate rescue operations, particularly during times of large-scale emergencies.

According to the report, it was found that at least 121 of the 343 fire fighters who died could have been saved had adequate communication systems been in place. For this reason, the Congressman said that grants were needed in order to ensure adequate long-term plans to prevent the large-scale loss of life.

Marsh cites the release of communications data on the day of the attacks in order to substantiate these points. In addition to 12,000 pages of oral testimony from firefighters, the 15 hours of radio transmissions show a state of disorientation and panic among rescue professionals and agencies. Inadequate communication systems meant that rescue workers could not coordinate their efforts efficiently. As a result, both rescue workers and civilians who might have been saved were not. This is the direct result of first responders being unable to communicate with each other. During the time of the report, this was recognized as a critical necessity in search and rescue operations. The lesson learned during 2001 is not one that the United States could afford to have to relearn during another attack.

ii. Rescue professionals unable to communicate

Chandler & Feinberg (2007: 61) emphasize the need of proper communication systems in order to ensure proper rescue operations during crisis situations. They note that all too often the costs involved in adequate interoperability costs lives, as indeed they did during 9/11. The authors cite the strategies used in Anne Arundel County (MD) in order to demonstrate their points. In this large and complex region, it was recognized that an integrated communications network was essential to properly handle complex crises and rescue operations. Furthermore, the county also uses a hierarchical, responsibility-specific communication plan, by means of which each responder involved in the situation will know exactly how to handle responsibility and implement the response.

In addition to these communication paradigms, integrate voice, data, and standards-based video conferencing systems were also implemented. These further clarify the roles of each responder during specific rescue operations. As such, the fire department, department of health, police, and other rescue agencies in the county are fully integrated in terms of communication, and can therefore respond to crises upon the platform of complete interoperability.

The authors also note that new technology is vital in order to ensure continued efficiency and interoperability. Specifically, they note the high-definition video, portable Web cameras, and streaming and archiving solutions can be used to increase such efficiency (Chandler & Feinberg 2007: 62). Clearly, the authors do not regard investments in new communications technology as a waste of money when considered in the life of potentially saved lives as a result of increased interoperability.

b. Hurricane Katrina

The devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina can also be used as an example of failed communications and the need to upgrade network systems across the country. According to the New Atlantis (2005), the effects of this natural disaster was made even worse because of human failure and inadequately implemented interoperability.

In addition to professional search teams and their interoperability, the report also emphasizes the need to prepare all citizens for crises situations. In addition to individual preparations, including communication and evacuation plans, government authorities need to be aware of those who cannot care for themselves, and have resources readily available to help such citizens back to their feet. In the New Orleans case, the report notes that, while advance planning was in place, the physical preparation and execution of the plan left something to be desired. These findings then appear to emphasize the need of both citizens and government to be prepared in conjunction.

Official responsibility on the other hand lies within implementing efficient emergency communications systems. Here also, as in 2001, there was a basic breakdown of communications among first responders. Indeed, even though being aware of emergency communication problems, as revealed by a drill in June 2005, officials did nothing to rectify the problem and hence the system broke down when it was needed most. As a result, the report recommends that governments should commit themselves to testing and upgrading communications systems, while also training personnel properly in the use and maintenance of emergency communications.

The report further emphasizes the nature of the problem as national in scale. The responsibility of maintaining communications lies with the federal government as well as local governments.

A significant challenge to the investment in implementation adequate communication systems is proper funding. Communications technology can be expensive, especially if it needs to be upgraded and maintained on a regular basis. Funding is not limitless, particularly when it comes to emergency management. Generally, emergencies such as the one in New Orleans are not foreseen well ahead of time or even shortly before they occur. Hence funding is generally applied to issues of greater or more immediate concern. When emergencies then do occur, systems to handle them adequately are not in place. Hence both the 2001 and 2005 tragedies were inadequately handled because of a lack of communication and infrastructure systems.

The New Atlantis report however also emphasizes the excellence of the broadcast media in keeping citizens informed regarding the impending storm and also regarding the progress of rescue operations once the tragedy occurred. While it is an essential and potentially life-saving service, this aspect of disaster communications was also managed badly during the Katrina tragedy. Inaccurate rumors were reported as fact, and influenced the public view of the disaster very negatively. It impacted both the federal response and the public opinion of such response adversely. The report notes that rescue operations could have been delayed by inaccurate reporting regarding the danger of the area. If adequate communications systems had been in place, reporting would have been more accurate, with responders being more speedy in helping citizens escape the tragedy.

Piper & Ramos (2006) address the issue of communications specifically and directly.

Indeed, they go as far as designating the failure in interoperability and communication a second disaster. The authors note that there were very poor communication and response among federal, regional, state, and local relief agencies after the occurrence of the hurricane. This is at the basis of the many failed systems and rescue efforts immediately following the disaster.

Some of the failed communication systems were not the result of poor communications planning, but rather of the violence of the storm. Aboveground structures such as cell phone towers and radio antennas were completely destroyed by the hurricane, leaving basic communication systems out of order. As a result, most public-safety systems were disabled, with the Police Department in the city being inoperable for at least three days after the hurricane.

Hence there was also no communication with or among emergency response personnel in order to coordinate the rescue effort. The back-up system entailed two radio channels that caused delays in key communications. The failures of back-up systems were in many cases due to poor planning, according to Piper & Ramos. Some were destroyed because they were located on ground floors, while others were out of fuel. Remaining backup systems were overloaded by the high volume of communication attempts. This made it nearly impossible for survivors to contact family members or rescue professionals.

Hurricane Katrina is probably the most significant indication of inadequate communications during and after a disaster. The result is what the authors refer to as "information chaos." Poorly mapped communication channels at local, state, regional, and federal levels is the greatest culprit in much of the misinformation and lack of communication that occurred.

While some cell phone and Internet communications remained, these were not sufficient to cooperate an adequate rescue operation, compounding the already large-scale tragedy. Patrick Stuver (2006) echoes the opinion of many, that the Katrina tragedy at least made government departments aware of the need for communication technology at the federal level. The tragedy was compounded by a basic lack of professional rescue competence. Stuver also notes that 911 emergency communications centers tend to be overwhelmed with calls during a disaster of the Katrina scale. Furthermore, the need for a mass communication system is emphasized. Such a system can facilitate pre-disaster evacuation operations, as well as post-disaster rescue efforts.

Stuver explains that mass notification provides a platform from which to send voice and text messages to large numbers of people at the same time. Such a system would prevent communications failures and potentially save lives.

Stuver also emphasizes the role of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA in implementing adequate communication systems. He notes that, while the management of FEMA by Homeland Security promised to improve coordination among rescue agencies and entities, disasters such as Hurricane Katrina proved that little of this promise materialized. Indeed, the author noted that the disaster caught officials by surprise, and that the promised systems were not yet in place when the tragedy struck.

Both the 9/11 and Katrina tragedies therefore prove the necessity of adequate communication systems on a much more extensive scale than those currently in place. Many lives were lost and great anxiety and stress created as a result of the lack of adequate communication. Such loss and tragedy cannot in fact be quantified, and serious consideration needs to be given to better implement communication systems.

Indeed, such communication systems are at the basis of considerable debate regarding implementation costs as opposed to their potential benefits.

III. EQUIPMENT and COST

a. 800 MHz Systems

i. FCC Rebanding mandate

In the light of the above-mentioned disasters, it appears that the government is indeed attempting to take measures for the improvement of nationwide communications technology. According to the Southeast Minnesota Public Safety Radio Website (2009), the Federal Communications Commission called for the implementation of 800 MHz radio systems. An increasing amount of networks across the country are adopting the new system in order to streamline their communication systems.

The Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN) is one of these. It implemented a plan to standardize and simplify the process. UCAN has 18,000 user radios that needed to be rebanded. In order to handle this mandate efficiently, the agency assembled a rebanding team that integrated all interested and involved parties. This enabled a realistic process that was both standardized and efficient. The end result was that communications were improved and that a system is now in place to provide adequate communication networks during disaster situations. Furthermore, these communications reduce interference and provide overall better communications.

According to UCAN (2009), the FCC ordered 800 MHz frequencies to be reconfigured in order to reduce interference on public safety systems. This entailed a very complex and time-consuming process, particularly for large networks such as UCAN. The mandate challenged the maintenance of high quality services to users. The process was thoroughly negotiated in terms of reimbursement and collaboration, which resulted in a successful end result that also incurred acceptable costs.

The State of Delaware (2007) purchased and implemented a statewide 800 MHz Digital Trunked Radio System as early as 1993. This system provided communications on a statewide level for all government agencies, including fire and emergency services and federal agencies. It provides 95% in-street coverage by means of portable radios.

Implementation was a lengthy process, to occur in three stages. The construction of 18 original tower sites to support the new system only began in 1996, nearly three years after the original purchase.

The three phases of implementation corresponded to the three counties of the state, and incorporated a digital microwave infrastructure. All three systems were accepted in 1998, although final acceptance was delayed by in-street coverage issues. The contractor, Motorola, upgraded portables and mobiles at no cost to the state in order to resolve these final issues. Final acceptance for the 800 MHz system was granted in June 2001. Further developments occurred during 2002, when the existing communications site was expanded and further upgraded.

A further five initiatives were contracted with Motorola in 2004. The first concerned in-building coverage, the second the upgrade of dispatch consoles, the third an upgrade to the master control system platform, the fourth an upgrade to regional intra- an interoperability, and finally the replacement of the 800 MHz analog radios system with a digital system of the same frequency. The final implementation was projected for October 2008.

Clearly, in both of the above cases, the state network agencies regarded the implementation and upgrade of the 800 MHz communication systems as a necessary part of their emergency preparedness operations. And certainly, in the light of the lessons from major disasters such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, such systems are a necessary part of a targeted and orderly emergency response system. As such, there are several advantages to the implementation of an adequate communication system.

ii. Benefits of 800 MHz Systems

The FCC mandate was issued as a result of the limitations revealed by disasters such as those mentioned above. When considering the advantages as opposed to the costs of the system, it is clear why some states comply with the mandate with little resistance. Firstly, the available radio spectrum is increasingly strained by the number of users. The new system makes better and more efficient use of the spectrum, while also allowing a larger number of users at the same time. This is a particularly beneficial feature for large jurisdictions, where communications are vital in order to effectively handle emergencies and other policing duties. The increase in number of users is enabled by the system's use of a pool of frequencies, assigning any unused frequency to any user at a given time (Southeast Minnesota Public Safety Radio).

Furthermore, trunked systems also include more flexibility than traditional systems. Complex channel assignments are easily set up by computer, while reconfiguration can also be accomplished without necessarily needing the help of a technician. Police departments can also use the computerized systems to add additional channels for use in emergency situations.

Conventional systems are much more limited than truncated systems, with each user being able to use only one assigned frequency. This would create problems such as busy channels, even when police are in need of communications during emergency situations.

Trunked systems use satellite receivers for complete coverage, with each channel including a pair of frequencies. The FCC provided 250 channel pairs for the police, fire department, and other emergency response agencies. The new mandate is therefore designed to increase communication efficiency, particularly during times when channels are likely to be constricted.

Finally, a major advantage of the new system, although more sophisticated than traditional communications technology, is that it provides greater convenience and simplicity for the user. Years of research was implemented to simplify the system, which the user can work with the simple push of a button. An electronic switching system is controlled by a computer, from which the user benefits by increased simplicity.