Arizona Public Safety Communications Governance Assessment SUBMITTED APRIL 2018 TO: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

Mission Critical Partners | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1. ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNANCE ......................................................................... 5 3.2. SAFECOM/NCSWIC EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNANCE GUIDE FOR STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL AND TERRITORIAL OFFICIALS ........................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3. UTAH COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................... 13 3.4. INDIANA INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION ..................................................................................... 13 3.5. MINNESOTA STATEWIDE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BOARD ................................................................. 14

4. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 15

5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 15

6. ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

Mission Critical Partners | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This assessment was conducted at the request of the Arizona Department of Administration to identify best practices from across the country in the establishment and operation of an effective public safety communications governance structure. The information contained herein is a compilation of what we believe to be the ideal models of public safety communications governance to insure an efficient and effective staffing and operating model to facilitate interoperable communications among the many public safety stakeholder agencies across the State. The public safety communications eco-system consists of many components, including members of the public, public safety answering points, first responders, agencies which support first responders, and the technology which ties all of the components together. Governance is meant to address the human aspect of communications by providing a platform for meaningful discussion and coordination amongst the varied agencies and entities which make up the stakeholder community. An effective governance board is able to work in a collaborative manner to identify best practices for communications processes and procedures which best meet the needs of the public safety community, and thereby enhancing public safety services provided to the citizens. 1. BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION Efficient and effective communications between public safety entities are critical to ensuring that responders are able to access the information they need when they need it in order to coordinate responses to the thousands of incidents that occur each year. In today’s public safety environment, there are three overarching technology realms: land mobile radio (LMR); broadband; and 9-1-1. Each of these technology platforms has its own complexities. Those complexities increase exponentially when examining all three collectively. These technological complexities, together with the human element of communications, make it vital that a strong governance structure is in place to enhance collaboration among the various public safety entities, to ensure that communications occur in such a manner that best enables responders to perform their duties in protecting life and property, in the most efficient manner possible. Effective public safety communications must be both operable and interoperable. Operable communications provide responders of a public safety agency with the ability to communicate with each other. Interoperable communications provide responders of different agencies with the ability to communicate with each other. Achieving robust interoperability can be a tremendous challenge due to both technical and human issues. Figure 1 below depicts the Interoperability Continuum as developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications.1 The graphic clearly illustrates the need for strong governance in order to ensure interoperability among public safety entities.

1 https://www.dhs.gov/office-emergency-communications

Mission Critical Partners | 2

Figure 1: Interoperability Continuum

LMR is currently the “lifeblood” of public safety voice communications. There are thousands of LMR systems in operation across the country. These systems vary in size and complexity, from very basic analog repeater-based systems, to highly complex Internet Protocol (IP)-based digital trunked systems. The systems range in size from a few hundred users to tens of thousands. There are currently multiple land mobile radio networks deployed within Arizona including the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC) in the Phoenix area, the Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative (TRWC) in the eastern portion of Maricopa County, Pima County Wireless Integrated Network (PCWIN), and Yuma Regional Communications System (YRCS), and the statewide microwave network supporting multiple agencies operated by the Arizona Department of Public Safety, to name a few. Interoperable communications across these varying systems is highly complex from both technical and operational perspectives. Strong governance is necessary to break down barriers that adversely impact interoperability, especially from the operational perspective. Broadband communications is a relatively new communications platform being employed by public safety. Broadband technology allows public safety responders to access data that is needed to perform their jobs. Data can be in the form of text, images, and video. Currently, there are numerous public safety agencies that use commercially available broadband through companies such as Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and others. Broadband technology also is utilized by 9-1-1 centers, aka public safety answering points (PSAPs), in some areas where they have connections to an Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet), which is a broadband network dedicated to emergency services.

Mission Critical Partners | 3

In 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act2 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority3 (FirstNet). FirstNet is charged with building and operating a nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) platform. The NPSBN will be an LTE broadband network dedicated solely to public safety. This is important because the dedicated bandwidth will allow public safety to upload and download large amounts of data, such as streaming video, which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, on commercial networks due to the number of commercial users sharing the bandwidth. In March of 2018, FirstNet awarded a contract to AT&T to build and operate the NPSBN. AT&T has established a dedicated public safety core on their entire legacy network and is offering priority and preemption across the entire network for public safety. AT&T will work over the next 5 years to add coverage and capacity to the network by deploying the 20 MHz of spectrum known as the “D-block” that was provided to FirstNet for the NPSBN through the Act. The intent of the Act was to provide a nationwide interoperable public safety communications platform to solve many interoperable communications issues which were identified as part of the 911 Commission Report on the events of September 11, 2001. While the AT&T/FirstNet network does provide this interoperable platform, Verizon Wireless is now also offering priority and preemption on their network for public safety, and it is possible other carriers could also soon offer this service. This could create a situation where public safety agencies will be communicating on different networks that may not be completely interoperable, therefore, strong governance is essential to help mitigate these issues. Additionally, even though LTE networks are not yet a viable solution to providing mission critical voice communications, there are push-to-talk (PTT) applications currently available for LTE that can be integrated with LMR networks to provide some voice communications. A collaborative governance structure will be critical in establishing best practices for agencies wishing to leverage these PTT applications. The final element of the public safety communications ecosystem is the 9-1-1 system. If public safety communications were viewed as a hub-and-spoke model, PSAPs would be the hub. The 9-1-1 system provides the critical interface between the public and the responders. In the current environment, PSAPs receive telephone calls from the public—and in some cases a PSAP also may have the ability to receive text messages from the public—to report an event requiring a public safety response. A PSAP dispatcher then will initiate a response from the appropriate public safety entity. In the future, it is anticipated that the 9-1-1 system will begin to deploy Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) technology. NG9-1-1 is achieved by interconnecting PSAPs to an ESInet, and then enabling the PSAP to receive data submitted by the public over commercial networks and then through the ESInet. Once this capability is fully realized, and the NPSBN is fully deployed, this will create a new communications platform for public safety, one that enables the public to submit photos or video from a wide variety of devices to the PSAP; the PSAP then will be able to push that data out to the responders via the NPSBN. A governance model that allows for collaboration amongst all relevant entities will result in 2 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 USC 1401 et. seq.)) 3 www.firstnet.gov

Mission Critical Partners | 4

better coordination of the deployment of these networks to ensure that all possible efficiencies are realized. It is anticipated at some point in the distant future that LMR and broadband will merge to allow for a single network for both mission-critical voice and data. Currently, LMR networks are the only networks capable of providing mission-critical voice communications to public safety. This will remain so for the foreseeable future, but at some point, there likely will be a convergence to a single network for both voice and data. Figure 2 below from the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) depicts this anticipated convergence. Managing these technologies as they evolve over the coming years is going to require a sound and robust governance structure to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of public safety and their life-safety missions.

Figure 2: Public Safety Communications Evolution

Mission Critical Partners | 5

2. APPROACH In conducting this assessment, research was conducted on the background and structure of Arizona’s current public safety communications governance process. Further research then was conducted to identify best practices in public safety communications governance from other states,4 as well as recommendations5 from the OEC’s SAFECOM program. Comparisons then were made between the current Arizona governance structure and the identified best practices. This was done to identify changes to the current structure that would make it easier and more efficient to set standards and to make recommendations to the numerous public safety entities within the state on improving communications. 3. FINDINGS Public safety communications governance structures vary among states regarding how they are constituted and administered. The establishment of a governance board generally occurs in one of three ways: through an act of legislation; through an executive order from the governor; or ad hoc. Those created through legislation tend to have more overt authority, with well-defined responsibilities. However, making changes in either the construct or responsibilities of a board created from legislation can prove very challenging through the legislative process. For this reason, these boards tend to be less agile in responding to evolving technologies. In contrast, those created by executive order generally have less overall authority than those created by legislation; however, the process to make changes to an executive order are often less cumbersome and time consuming compared with making legislative changes. Finally, a board that is ad hoc in nature has no real authority, and thus less legitimacy than the others. 3.1. ARIZONA PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNANCE Arizona currently has no formalized active public safety communications governance structure. There previously was an entity known as the Public Safety Communications Commission (PSCC) which served as the governance structure, however, the PSCC ceased operating in any meaningful circa 2015. There currently is an effort underway to re-establish and effective public safety communications governance structure through Executive Order. Until final resolution and execution of a proposes Executive Order, the State is looking to establish an ad hoc structure to serve in the interim.

4 Other states to include Utah, Indiana, and Minnesota 5 (SAFECOM/NCSWIC, 2015)

Mission Critical Partners | 6

3.2. SAFECOM/NCSWIC EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GOVERNANCE GUIDE FOR STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL AND TERRITORIAL OFFICIALS

In 2015, a joint project between SAFECOM and NCSWIC produced the Emergency Communications Governance Guide for State, Local, Tribal and Territorial Officials (Guide). The Guide was produced to assist officials in establishing and maintaining effective public safety communications governance in today’s world of evolving technologies. The Guide was borne as a result of the revision of the National Emergency Communications Plan6 (NECP) in 2014. The first two goals established in the NECP focus directly on governance. The Guide notes that there are currently several structures in place across the country and there is no “one size fits all” model that would work everywhere due to various factors. It is important, however, that no matter what structure is utilized, there must be close communications and coordination amongst the bodies that oversee the primary components of public safety communications, which are LMR, broadband, 9-1-1/NG9-1-1, and alerts and warnings. The following attributes, extracted from the Guide, note the desired characteristics and activities that are typical for recommended governance structures:

• Documented Authority: Established formally with either an Executive Order or Legislation • Balanced Representation: Align needs and priorities across various stakeholders that have a

role in, or are impacted by communications-related activities • Properly-sized Membership: Determine appropriately sized membership that maintains

inclusiveness while permitting a quorum to be met regularly • Accountability: Determine whether stated roles, responsibilities, and membership requirements

are met routinely • Active Membership: Provide multiple means to participate in meetings (i.e., in-person,

videoconference, teleconference) while advancing information sharing and transparency by disseminating meeting minutes to members

• Meeting Frequency: Maintain consistent meeting cadence. Members should collectively determine where meetings will be held and include consistent or alternating meeting locations to increase attendance and participation depending on the size of the state or jurisdiction and residency of members

• Scalable and agile: Able to respond to changes in emergency communications landscape • Rules of Engagement: Manage internal and jurisdictional differences (e.g., “checking egos at

the door” and working toward common, universally beneficial goals) • Transparent and Responsive: Maintain an open and transparent forum to promote greater

stakeholder buy-in

6 (Office of Emergency Communications, 2014)

Mission Critical Partners | 7

• Funding and Sustainment: Identify sustainable funding for existing and future emergency communications priorities

• Oversight of Strategic Plans: Oversee and align activities with communications interoperability strategic plans such as the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP) and NECP

An effective governance structure does not have to contain each one of the aforementioned attributes, but should strive to contain most of them. The NECP has listed public safety communications governance as a top goal. Additionally, it recommends that each state formally appoints a Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) and have an updated SCIP. It is very important that governance be able to address all five lanes of the Interoperability Continuum as depicted in Figure 1 above. This can be accomplished through either the establishment of appropriate committees and subcommittees, or by enlisting subject-matter experts. Due to the ever-evolving technological landscape within public safety communications, it is imperative that close communications and coordination occur between the bodies that oversee these technologies—i.e., LMR, broadband, 9-1-1/NG9-1-1, and alerts and warnings—no matter what governance structures exist within a state. This is especially critical between the FirstNet SPOC, SWIC, and the 9-1-1 community. Governance authority is also an important consideration. As previously stated, there are generally three types of governance bodies: borne from legislation; borne from executive order; and ad hoc. Figure 6 below, extracted from the Guide, defines each one. Figure 7 then examines the differences between each structure.

Mission Critical Partners | 8

Figure 6: Types of Governance Authority

Mission Critical Partners | 9

Figure 7: Governance Authority Key Findings Governance bodies must be flexible and agile to adopt to the ever-changing environment. The establishment of a charter and bylaws reflective of this ability is critical in any governance structure. The most effective way to accomplish this is to allow for the creation of committees and subcommittees to examine and adapt to the changing landscape.

Mission Critical Partners | 10

The creation of effective memoranda of agreement (MOA) or memoranda of understanding (MOU) is also necessary in situations where governance is going to oversee shared, regional, or inter-connected communications systems. The Guide states that there are three main types of governance models employed today. Figure 8 below depicts the three models:

Figure 8: Governance Body Models Model A shows the three primary communications technology platforms—LMR, broadband, and 9-1-1/NG9-1-1—falling under the same umbrella body. Model B, shown with two variations, depicts two of the three primary platforms falling under the same body, with the third platform under a

Mission Critical Partners | 11

different structure. Model C reflects all three platforms residing under their own individual governance structure. The Guide states that all three can be effective models, provided that there is robust communications between all of the individual bodies under Models B and C. Most states utilizing Model A have done so after recognizing the need to include the 9-1-1/NG9-1-1 stakeholders in broadband planning to ensure that interoperability and synergies are realized. In most cases, these states had transitioned from Model B to Model A by progressively engaging elected officials. Governance models need to incorporate membership from LMR, broadband, and 9-1-1/NG9-1-1 functions at all levels of government. Case studies have confirmed that governance models seem to function best with 50 percent or greater local representation. The executive council should be comprised of more senior officials. The number of voting members should be between 15 and 20 to achieve optimum efficiency and representation, according to the bodies that were studied in producing the Guide. Case studies have shown inclusion of the SWIC as either a voting or non-voting participant is beneficial. Additionally, inclusion of the SPOC for broadband planning also would be beneficial. Achieving this level of balance between technology stakeholders and levels of government can best be accomplished through the establishment of different committees and sub-committees. This bottom-up approach to governance through various committees and subcommittees that report up to the executive committee provides a voice for all levels of government. Figure 9 below illustrates three examples of approaches to subcommittees used by governance bodies.

Mission Critical Partners | 12

Figure 9: Subcommittee Models

As previously stated, the Guide indicates that there is no “one size fits all” approach to governance. The key to whatever structure is employed is the existence of robust communications and coordination between the entities responsible for LMR, broadband, 9-1-1/NG9-1-1, and alerts and warnings. By way of inference, it would seem that adopting a Model A approach from Figure 8 above would be the most logical way of assuring the desired level of communications and coordination. However, there are often political or other barriers that make that model, or transitioning to that model, very challenging.

Mission Critical Partners | 13

In producing the Guide, SAFECOM/NCSWIC examined several existing models in formulating the recommendations. Similarly, we examine three models in the following sections. 3.3. UTAH COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY In 1997, the State of Utah created the Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN) for the purpose of providing statewide public safety two-way LMR coverage paid for by the user agencies.7 UCAN was created as a “quasi state agency” managed by a board of directors. In 2014, House Bill 1558 resulted in the creation of the Utah Communications Authority (UCA). The UCA is responsible for governance of the statewide LMR system, FirstNet planning, interoperability, and 9-1-1 program administration. The UCA is run by a 27-person board9 consisting of representatives of the law enforcement (police and sheriff), corrections, fire service, emergency management, public health and 9-1-1 sectors, from state, local, county, and tribal governments. The UCA has established subcommittees to address 9-1-1, statewide interoperability and FirstNet. The UCA is an example of Model A from Figure 8. 3.4. INDIANA INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION The Indiana Integrated Public Safety Commission10 (IPSC) was enabled through legislation in the form of Indiana Code 5-26,11 and is the governance body responsible for the statewide LMR system, interoperability and FirstNet planning. The IPSC consists of 12 members from state, federal, local, and county public safety interests. The IPSC created the Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee12 (SIEC) for the purpose of overseeing the expansion and improvement of regional and local interoperable communications and governance. The SIEC consists of 18 members representing local, state, and PSAP entities. The Indiana State 911 Board13 oversees the administration of the 9-1-1 system within the state. The 911 Board was created through Indiana Code 36-8-16.714 and is administered by a board of 15 persons from state, local, and county governments. The Indiana model is an example of Model B.1 from Figure 8 above, but also provides a good example of the bottom-up approach, as it established the SIEC with regional representation under the IPSC.

7 Utah Communications Authority webpage located at http://uca911.org/about/history 8 Utah House Bill 155 of 2014 located at http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/hb0155.html 9 Utah Communications Board Members located at http://uca911.org/about/board-members 10 Indiana Integrated Public Safety Commission website located at http://www.in.gov/ipsc/2412.htm 11 Indiana Code 5, Article 26 located at http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2015/ic/titles/005/articles/026/ 12 Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee webpage located at http://www.in.gov/ipsc/2628.htm 13 Indiana State 911 Board homepage located at https://www.in911.net/ 14 Indiana Code 36-8-16.7 located at http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/7/4/7/a/747a8bbc/TITLE36_AR8_ch16.7.pdf

Mission Critical Partners | 14

3.5. MINNESOTA STATEWIDE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BOARD The most comprehensive governance structure examined was the Minnesota Statewide Emergency Communications Board15 (SECB). The SECB was created by Minnesota statute 403.3616 and originally was called the Statewide Radio Board. The SECB has governance responsibility for statewide interoperability, LMR, broadband/FirstNet, 9-1-1/NG9-1-1, and alerts and warnings. The SECB has established a very robust subcommittee structure to address a thorough list of elements involved in public safety communications. Figure 10 below illustrates the SECB structure, which is another example of a Model A from Figure 8 above.

Figure 10: Minnesota Statewide Emergency Communications Board

15 Minnesota Statewide Emergency Communications Board website located at https://dps.mn.gov/entity/secb/governance/Pages/default.aspx 16 Minnesota statute 403.36 located at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2010&id=403.36

Mission Critical Partners | 15

The SECB consists of 20 members, with one-third from greater Minnesota, one-third from the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and one-third from state agencies that provide public safety services. Members are from all areas of the state and all public safety disciplines. The structure also provides a great example of the bottom-up approach given the local and regional representation in the subcommittees. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Since Arizona currently does not have a functioning public safety communications governance body, MCP recommends the establishment of such body would be best served following the model depicted in Model A of Figure 8 above. This model represents the best practice to insuring all components of public safety communications are contained under the same governance umbrella. Each of the three components, LMR, broadband, and 9-1-1/NG9-1-1 can establish individual working groups and task teams under the overarching body. MCP believes that incorporation of these recommendations would facilitate the requisite collaboration among all appropriate stakeholders to ensure that current and future public safety communications networks are deployed and operated to meet the needs of the public safety responders, as well as the citizens they serve. 5. REFERENCES Office of Emergency Communications. (2014, October 21). 2014 National Emergency Communications

Plan. Retrieved from US Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/2014-national-emergency-communications-plan

SAFECOM/NCSWIC. (2015). Emergency Communications Governance Guide for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Officials. Washington, DC: SAFECOM/NCSWIC. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2015%20Governance%20Guide_Master_508c%20Final.pdf

6. ACRONYMS

ACRONYM DEFINITION

AODA Arizona Department of Administration DPS Arizona Department of Public Safety EAS Emergency Alert System

ESInet Emergency Services IP Network FirstNet First Responder Network Authority

IP Internet Protocol

Mission Critical Partners | 16

IPAWS Integrated Public Alert Warning System IPSC Indiana Integrated Public Safety Commission LMR Land Mobile Radio LTE Long-Term Evolution MCP Mission Critical Partners, Inc. MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NCSWIC National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators NECP National Emergency Communications Plan

NG9-1-1 Next Generation 9-1-1 NPSBN Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network

OEC Office of Emergency Communications PCWIN Pima County Wireless Integrated Network PSAP Public Safety Answering Point PTT Push-to-talk RWC Regional Wireless Cooperative (Phoenix) SCIP Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan SECB Minnesota Statewide Emergency Communications Board SIEC Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee SPOC Single Point of Contact SWIC Statewide Interoperability Coordinator TRWC Topaz Regional Wireless Cooperative (Eastern Maricopa) UCA Utah Communications Authority

UCAN Utah Communications Agency Network YRCS Yuma Regional Communications System