This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 COLLABORATION AND THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: INTRASTATE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY By KIMBERLY D. MARTIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TH E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Kimberly D. Martin
3 To my mother for always believing in me
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my family and friends for being patient throughout the ye ars. I would also like to thank my University of Florida fa mily and dissertation committee: David Hedge, Sheila Dickison, Richard Scher, Lynn Leverty, and Sharon Austin. Finally, I owe a special thanks to my colleagues in the governors office in Virginia whose tireless work inspired me to pursue a degree in an applied field.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................11 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 1 INTRASTATE RELATIONSHIPS, INTEROPERABILITY, AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................16 Introduction .............................................................................................................................16 Evolution of Intergovernmental Re lations ......................................................................17 What is Interoperability? .................................................................................................18 Intrastate Collaboration & Interoperability ............................................................................24 State and Local Policy Development ......................................................................................26 Research Questions and Methods ...........................................................................................29 Unit of Analysis ...............................................................................................................31 State Selection .................................................................................................................31 2 COLLABORATION AS A POLICY INPUT ........................................................................34 Explanation of Terms .............................................................................................................37 Explanation of Collaborative Inputs ................................................................................39 Explanation of Political Systems .....................................................................................54 Case Analysis ..........................................................................................................................59 Qualitative Measurement of Collaborative Success ...............................................................60 3 COLLABORATION BY STATE ..........................................................................................68 Louisiana .................................................................................................................................69 Arkansas .................................................................................................................................79 Rhode Island ...........................................................................................................................86 Texas .......................................................................................................................................92 California ..............................................................................................................................102 Illinois ...................................................................................................................................113 Washington ...........................................................................................................................121 New York ..............................................................................................................................129 High, Moderate, and Low Levels of Collaboration ..............................................................140 P attern Matching and Propositions .......................................................................................146
6 4 POLICY DEVELOPMENT BY NETWORK ......................................................................163 Louisiana ...............................................................................................................................169 Arkansas ...............................................................................................................................170 Rhode Island .........................................................................................................................172 Texas .....................................................................................................................................173 California ..............................................................................................................................175 Illinois ...................................................................................................................................177 Washington ...........................................................................................................................178 New York ..............................................................................................................................179 Which Network Structures Lead to Collaboratio n? ..............................................................181 5 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................195 Louisiana ...............................................................................................................................196 Arkansas ...............................................................................................................................198 Rhode Island .........................................................................................................................199 Texas .....................................................................................................................................200 California ..............................................................................................................................201 Illinois ...................................................................................................................................202 Washington ...........................................................................................................................204 New York ..............................................................................................................................205 Keys to Successful Collaboration: Policy Inputs and Political Systems .......................206 Keys to Successful Collaboration: Networks. ...............................................................208 Future Research ....................................................................................................................209 Implications for Federalism and Local ism ...........................................................................210 APPENDIX A INTEROPERABILITY BACKGROUND AND TERMINOLOGY ...................................213 B STATEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PLAN CRITERIA ...........216 C STATE INFORMATION TABLES .....................................................................................218 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................220 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................234
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 21 Case selection .....................................................................................................................63 31 Federal funding awarded to Arkans as in millions. ..........................................................150 32 Federal funding aw arded to California in millions ..........................................................151 33 Federal funding awarded to Illinois in million s ...............................................................152 34 Federal funding awarded to Louisiana in millions. .........................................................154 35 Federal funding awar ded to Rhode Island in millions .....................................................154 36 Comparison of racial demographics in New York State .................................................155 37 Federal funding awarded to New York in millions. ........................................................156 38 Federal funding awarded to Texas in millions. ................................................................157 39 Federal funding aw arded to Washington in millions .......................................................158 310 Comp arison of governance structures ..............................................................................158 311 Comparison of leadership ................................................................................................159 312 Statewide n etworks available ...........................................................................................159 313 Comp arison of funding across states ...............................................................................160 314 Comparison of training available across states. ...............................................................160 315 Comparison of SOPs across states. ..................................................................................160 316 Statutory authority ...........................................................................................................161 317 Compariso n of political history .......................................................................................161 318 Comparison of risk level ..................................................................................................161 319 State demographics ..........................................................................................................162 320 Fulfillment of propositions according to state .................................................................162 C 1 Indicating whether the state has UASI regions. ...............................................................218 C 2 US Census B ureau 2009 population estimates ................................................................218
8 C 3 Grant totals by stat e from 2006 to 2010 in millions ........................................................218 C 4 Local discretionary authority ...........................................................................................219
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 21 Collaboration as a policy input for interoperability policy. ...............................................62 22 Subject sp ecific organizational structure ...........................................................................63 23 Regional governance structure ...........................................................................................64 24 Conventional organizational structure ...............................................................................64 25 Lev eraged organizational structure ....................................................................................65 26 Policy inputs prese nt in the ideal collaborative state .....................................................66 27 Political systems present in the ideal collabor ative state ...............................................67 31 Emergency manag ement regions. ....................................................................................150 32 Hierarchical depiction of Arkansas governance structure. .............................................150 33 Hierarchical depiction of Californias int eroperable governance structure .....................151 34 CalSIEC planning areas and mutual aid regions ..............................................................151 35 Illinois regions .................................................................................................................152 36 Illinois governance structure. .........................................................................................152 37 Louisiana homeland s ecurity regions ...............................................................................153 38 Louisianas comm unications governance structure .........................................................153 39 Current LWIN av ailability ...............................................................................................154 310 Communications systems currently being integrated into Gulf WIN.. ............................154 311 FCC regional planning committees in New York. ...........................................................155 312 New York States form er governance structure. ..............................................................156 313 State planning regions and disaster district boundaries.. .................................................156 314 Hierarchical depiction of T exass communications governance structure. .....................157 315 Regional homeland security coordination districts ..........................................................157 316 Washington State s commun ications governance structure ............................................158
10 41 Network density and structural holes. ..............................................................................184 42 Direct and indirect ties to the sta te ...................................................................................184 43 Louisiana post Katrina 2005 ............................................................................................184 44 Louisianas network model in 2007 after instituting a regional structure. ......................185 45 Louisiana based on service type ......................................................................................185 46 Arkansas by government type ..........................................................................................186 47 Arkansas by service type .................................................................................................186 48 Rhode Island Communications Working Group members in red. ...................................187 49 Organizations re ceiving an interview in blue. .................................................................187 410 TxRC subcommittee members make up the internal portion of the network. .................188 411 Texas based on regions. ...................................................................................................188 412 Texas based on service type .............................................................................................189 413 Calif ornia based on government level .............................................................................189 414 California based on service type. .....................................................................................190 415 PSRSP C members serve as gate keepers .........................................................................190 416 Illinois SIEC members in blue. ........................................................................................191 417 Illinois by government level ............................................................................................191 418 Washingtons network by government type. ...................................................................192 419 Washi ngtons network by service type ............................................................................192 420 Washingtons SIEC membership. ....................................................................................193 421 New York based on government level .............................................................................193 422 The SWN Advisory Council formed a close knit group. .................................................194 423 New York based on service type .....................................................................................194 A 1 Basic components of a land mobile radio communications system. ...............................213 A 2 Public safety ag ency radio frequency bands ....................................................................214
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADEM Arkansas Department of Emergency Management AICC Arkansas Interoperable Communications Committee AICEC Arkansas Interoperable Communications Executive Committee ARS CIP Arkansas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan AWIN Arkansas Wireless Information Network CALCORD California On Scene Emergency Coordination Radio Plan CalSCIP California Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan CalSIEC California Statew ide Interoperability Executive Committee CLEMARS California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio System COML Federal Communications Unit Leader training program CWG Communications Working Group DIS Department of Information Systems DPS Department of Public Saf ety EMAC Emergency Management Advisory Council EMD Emergency Management Division EOC Emergency Operations Center FCC Federal Communications Commission GDEM Governors Division of Emergency Management GOHSEP Governors Office of Homeland Security and Emerge ncy Planning Gulf WIN Gulf of Mexico Wireless Information Network ICS Incident Command System IECGP Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program IEMA Illinois Emergency Management Agency ISB Information Services Board
12 ISCIP Illinois Statewide Comm unications Interoperability Plan ISPERN Illinois State Police Emergency Radio Network ITTF Illinois Terrorism Task Force LACIR Louisiana Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations LA SCIP Louisiana Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan MOU Memoranda of Understanding NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NIMS National Incident Management System NIPC Northern Illinois Planning Commission NYSCIP New York Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan OEC Office of Emergency Communications OES Office of Emergency Services OFT Office for Technology OHS Office of Homeland Security P25 Refers to Project 25 compliant technology PSIC Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program PSRSPC Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Co mmittee RIEMA Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency RI SCIP Rhode Island Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan RISCON Rhode Island Statewide Communication Network RoIP Radio Over Internet Protocol RPC Regional Planning Committee SAFECOM Fed eral Safe Communications Program SCIP Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
13 SIEC Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee SIPO Statewide Interoperability Planning Office SOC State Operations Cen ter SOP Standard Operating Procedure SoS System of Systems STARCOM 21 State Radio Communications for the 21st Century SWN Statewide Network TARC Texas Association of Regional Councils TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan TRCIP Texas Radio Commun ications Interoperability Plan TxRC Texas Radio Coalition TxSCIP Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan UASI Urban Area Security Initiative UHF Ultra High Frequency USGS United States Geological Survey VHF Very High Frequency WASCIP Washington Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan WSP Washington State Police
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COLLABORATION AND THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: INTRASTATE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY By Kimberly D. Martin August 2011 Chair: David M. Hedge Major: Political Science Harold Seidman (1998) writes that by finding the correct formula for effective intergovernmental collaboration we can reconcile the irreconcilable, harmonize competing interest, and overcome irrationalities in our government structures. I discuss a specific type of collaboration, that of local and state emergency managem ent agencies and the interoperability plans which require them to collaborate. Interoperability has been the highest priority of state and local governments since September 11th (Reddick 2008; NGA 2009a). Interoperability includes wireless voice and dat a communication. An effective interoperability system would allow a rapid and coordinated response between local and state agencies during emergency incidents. There are several barriers to effective interoperable communication which have created the need for greater collaboration between state and local governments. Emergency management agencies have different procedures, missions, protocols, and many agencies operate on different radio frequencies. The most troublesome barrier is the inability of m any state and local governments to overcome the historical and structural barriers that prevent them from collaborating.
15 Given the same expectations from the federal government, why are some state and local governments able to form a collaborative bond w hile others are not? This research focuses on the policy development process as a crucial starting point for facilitating collaboration between states and local governments. Content analysis of statewide plans and interviews with local, state, and federal officials is utilized to develop case studies describing the collaborative efforts of eight U.S. states. Pattern matching and network analysis is also employed to determine which policy inputs result in greater levels of collaboration. In short, I argue that the propensity of states to create an environment where local governments willingly collaborate for the sake of interopera bility depends on the political tools or inputs that the state is willing to invest and the influence of political systems on those inputs. When inputs and political systems combine, they will either produce successful or failed policy. Impediments to collaboration can be addressed by determining what characteristics prevent states and local governments from working together.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRASTATE RELATIONSHIPS, INTEROPERABILITY, AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT Introduction There is a fine line between gaining the benefits of collaborating and making the situation worse. Chris Huxham and David McDonald 1992 Harold Seidman (1998) writes that by finding the correct formula for effective intergovernmental collaboration we can reconcile the irreconcilable, harmonize competing interest, and overcome irrationalities in our govern ment structures. I examine a specific type of collabo ration, that of local and state emergency management agencies and the interoperability plans which require them to collaborate. This research focuses on the policy development process as a crucial starting point for facilitating collaboration between states and local governments. Why have s ome state and local governments been unable to form a collabor ative bond while others seem to effortlessly maneuver through the policy process ? In short, I argue that the propensity of states to create an environment w here local governments willingly collab orate for the sake of public safety depends on the political tools or inputs the state is willing to invest and the influence of political systems on those inputs. Successful collaboration also depends on the structu re of the relationship and communication between each level of government. This chapter discusses how intrastate relationships have evolved over time and describes how September 11th increased the need for intrastate collaboration. This research spe cifically follows the development of the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan: a shared policy that the states are tasked with developing alongside their respective local governments. The SCIP is also introduced in this chapter along with the c orresponding research questions and methods that will be used to explore this topic.
17 Evolution of Intergovernmental R elations Successful intergovernmental collaboration has not always been so difficult to achieve. During the early half of the 20th century many scholars observed an increase in intergovernmental collaboration due to the rapid expansion of bureaucratic agencies (Corwin 1937; Clark 1938, V.O.Key 1937; Anderson 1946). This increase in collaborative activity was seen as an example of coo perative federalism where each distinct level of government began to share responsibilities and work toward a common goal (Grodzins 1966). The adjective cooperative implies that intergovernmental relations are peaceful and friendly (Elazar 1991). In r eality, cooperative federalism has come to refer to the fact t hat governments must cooperate not necessarily work and function in a cooperative manner (Elazar 1991). A great many intergovernmental relationships are not at all cooperative or peaceful. T his led Grodzins (1966) to coin the phrase antagonistic cooperation which occurs when governments work together, at times unwillingly, and at times pursuing contradictory goals. Antagonistic cooperation entails continuous tension among organizations who must balance between positive cooperation and autonomy. As cooperative federalism progressed, the practice of collaboration became widespread and necessary. Collaboration is a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships; it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions (Thomson and Perry 2006). Collaboration requires a more advanced relationship than cooperation and coordination; both of these terms ambiguously indicate that groups will work together. Gray (1989) writes that cooperation and coordination are part of the early stages of collaboration. Collaboration is a long term process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem explore their differences and search for solutions beyond a limited vision of what is possible (Gray 1989).
18 By the end of the 1960s governmental attempts at collaboration had turned to coercive federalism (Elazar et al. 1 969). Efforts at policymaking and implementation went from a system where each level of government federal, state, and local was considered equal, to the federal government playing a sizeable role in policymaking. State and local governments soon began to suffer sanctions if they did not comply (Elazar 1991). Post 9/11 intergovernmental relations. Post September 11th federalism has once again distorted the lines between federal, state, and local control over a high stakes issue. Homeland s ecurity and emergency management were generally thought to be the domain of state and local governments before terrorist attacks took place on American soil (Walters 2001; Bentley 2004). Since September 11th there have been many instances where the federal government has taken control over homeland security issues. What is I nteroperability? The ability of first responders EMS, fire, police, and public health officials to communicate with each other during an emergency is essential for protection of people and property (GAO 2004b). Public safety officials generally recognize that effective interoperable communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all the time (GAO 2004b). An effective interoperability system would allow a rapid and coordinated response to any incident whether it is as large as Hurricane Katrina or as small as a highway oil spill. Interoperability includes wireless voice and data co mmunication. Most interoperable communication occurs when first responders use wireless radios to report to emergency headquarters or other first responders. Interoperability can also include wireless data transfer such as transfer of criminal records, b uilding layouts, health information, or picture or video transmissions. Effective interoperability occurs when different electronic communications
19 systems agency to agency, local to local, and state to local are able to connect with one another in a t imely manner (GAO 2007). Interoperability has been a priority for the federal government and states since the September 11th attacks. In remarks before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security on March 4, 2004, Department of Homel and Security Secretary Tom Ridge said, "Our first responders are first on the scene and often the last to leave. Their ability to communicate and work together in the event of a crisis is paramount. So let me emphasize that we want to ensure that when fede ral money is spent ... it fosters interoperability." To understand the importance of intrastate interoperability we need look no further than the local response to September 11th. The company tasked with analyzing the local response to the plane crash at t he Pentagon declared that Arlington Countys response was a model that every metropolitan area should emulate (Titan 2002). Arlingtons fire department worked closely with the FBI. The fire chief in Alexandria sent a battalion chief to Arlingtons comm and post to offer necessary support. Arlington County was later praised for its highly skilled and competent officials and field staff who were able to effectively react to the crisis by communicating quickly and efficiently with one another (Titan 2002). This success was based on a foundation of interoperable coordination which had begun years earlier. Arlington had already developed a response plan with an integrated command structure, mutual aid agreements for advanced communication with neighboring c ounties, a stable emergency team, and simulations within their own jurisdiction and among other local governments in the years before the attack took place (Titan 2002). Alternatively, the consulting company which investigated New York Citys res ponse found that communication to commanders in the World Trade Center Buildings was irregular and
20 unreliable (McKinsey & Company 2002). Command centers were not able to transmit necessary information about what was happening to the two buildings outside. The New York Police Department had a helicopter circling around the Towers but because the two departments had no mutual aid agreement the fire chiefs inside had no way of receiving police assessments. The police department had no representatives at the fire departments command posts and vice versa. New York fire departments had never established a formal method for requesting mutual aid from neighboring communities (McKinsey & Company 2002). Finally, there was no method for incorporating other agenci es. The World Trade Center facility was the responsibility of the Port Authoritys police force which was left out of the coordination loop entirely (McKinsey & Company 2002). Granted, the scale of the World Trade Center attack was at a much greater lev el than that of the Pentagon. The attacks on New York involved two buildings and larger planes. The design of the Pentagon kept the building from collapsing and aided emergency personnel in their efforts to evacuate; the World Trade Centers were not so lu cky. It would be easy to argue that even the most prepared and best managed organizations would have struggled to overcome the crisis that New Yorks emergency management departments had to deal with that day (Kettle 2003). The former examples were not meant to belittle the achievements of New Yorks emergency management departments. They simply demonstrate that homeland security and emergency management are only as effective as the coordinating efforts put into place before the incident. They also dem onstrate that effective interoperability is imperative to saving lives and is also a crucial factor that must be considered when developing a plan for effective intergovernmental collaboration.
21 Why is collaboration difficult? There are several barrier s that states must overcome to achieve effective interoperable communication Clearly, local and state agencies both have different procedures, missions, and protocols, but they also operate on different radio frequencies. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to function and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges (GAO 2007). Varied radio frequencies have created obstacles to effective communication and, thus, have created the need for greater collaboration between state and local agencies. 1 The variation in radio frequencies across agencies has led to incompatible communication systems and has hindered the ability of agencies to collaborate. The incompatibility of many commun ications systems can be blamed on the myriad of manufacturers who produce and sell incompatible products (GAO 2007). However, incompatibility also stems from changes in frequency bands. Over time agencies were assigned higher frequencies as lower frequen cies became more congested. Unfortunately, older equipment cannot transmit and receive all frequency bands. Differences in equipment and frequency bands make it difficult for first responders to communicate with other first responders in different jurisd ictions because technology was purchased without regard for interoperability (GAO 2007). Agencies that choose to collaborate have developed several technical approaches for improving interoperable communications across jurisdictions. Some of these techniques include swapping radios, patching incompatible radio systems together, developing mutual aid channels, and internet based systems. Technical issues are not the only barriers to collaboration among local and state agencies. In 2004, the GA O reported that the fundamental barrier to effectively addressing wireless 1 For a more detailed discussion of interoperability terminology and problems, refer to Appendix A.
22 interoperability problems for public safety has been the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental cooperation and planning (GAO 2004b). 2 The federal government believes that they can provide leadership, long term commitment, and focus to help states and local governments meet the federal governments goals (GAO 2004b). Leadership and support would come in the form of a national architecture that identifies communications requirements and technical standards, a national database of interoperable communications frequencies, a common nomenclature for those frequencies, and statewide interoperable communications plans (GAO 2004b). Accordi ng to a GAO report (2007), states find it difficult to collaborate with their local governments because: 1.) many local and state agencies are reluctant to give up control over their current communication methods, and 2.) public safety officials continue t o defend their individual locality rather than coming together to solve regional and statewide issues. To ameliorate this problem, GAO suggests that an operation structure should be employed that strictly defines who is in charge and under what circumstan ces voice, data, or both. In essence, the solution is to create a static organizational structure where reactions to different emergency scenarios are identical across the entire country (GAO 2004a). Acknowledging the gaps in state and local interopera bility after the September 11th attacks, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the federal Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program in 2001, otherwise known as SAFECOM (GAO 2004b). The goal of SAFECOM is to unify effort s to achieve national wireless communications interoperability (GAO 2004b). SAFECOM now resides in the Department of Homeland Securitys Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) and the Office of Emergency 2In testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, International Relations and the Committee on Government Reform, July20, 2004.
23 Communications (OEC) due to its limite d authority to coordinate federal and state efforts (GAO 2004b).3Until 2007, the federal governments attempts to develop a national plan were unorganized and lacked a comprehensive strategy to coordinate grant funding or manage statewide interoperability planning. While DHS has made great strides toward their goals, 4 in many respects their collaborative efforts could be considered coercive. DHS now requires states to implement a Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP). The approval of the SCIPs allows states and territories to rece ive Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants (PSIC) and Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds (DHS). Since April of 2008, a ll stat es and territories have developed and submitted a SCIP .5Practitioner collaboration has become the centerpiece of SAFECOMs strategy for increased state and local collaboration. SAFECOM worked with officials in Virginia to develop its statewide communications plan which included opportunities for state and local input and partnership. DHS asked every state to complete a planning process, similar to the strategy developed in Virginia, which relies on the expertise of local and state level practitioners (SAFECOM 2007). A list of criteria was established for each state to follow while developing 3 The Department of Homeland Security felt that moving SAFECOM to the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility would give the progra m greater authority to coordinate state and local efforts. The OIC supports SAFECOMs research, development, testing, and evaluation efforts and is housed under the Science and Technology Directorate in DHS. SAFECOM is also supported by the OEC through development of tools meant to guide local and state governments in their efforts to develop interoperability plans. The OEC is managed by the Directorate for National Protection and Programs. ( www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/about/default.htm accessed March 29, 2009). 4 GAO 07301 states that no process has been established for ensuring that states grant requests are consistent with statewide plans. The report suggests that until DHS resolves this issue states and local governments will not be able to improve the ir interoperability capabilities. 5 Office of Emergency Communications, in conjunction with its partners at the Department of Commerces National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal E mergency Management Agency facilitated a two part peer review process. This included individual peer reviews and peer panel discussions to evaluate the SCIPs as well as the PSIC Invest ment Justifications ( www.dh s.gov/xprepresp/programs/gc_1225902750156.shtm accessed, March 29, 2009).
24 their plan (DHS and SAFECOM 2008a; DHS and SAFECOM 2008b). Many of the required criteria will become variables in this research. Intrastate Collaboration & Interoperability Intrastate collaboration is discussed in the literature on intergovernmental collaboration as it pertains to the overall relationship between federal, state and local governments (Anderson 1946; Beder 1984; Gray 1985; Huxham and McDonald 1992; Alexander 1995; Linden 2002). These publi cations suggest that state and local governments confront the same challenges as federal and state governments. While this may be true in many situations, the complex relationship between states and local governments is hard to deny. This relationship ha s its own distinct history that varies considerably from state to state (Stratton 1989; Chubb 1991; McGuire 1991; Radin 1996; Eisenger 2006; Reddick 2008). Why is it important to examine intrastate efforts to collaborate separately from federal and state inter organizational collaboration? First, many authors refer to the relationship between states and local governments as horizontal (Bardach 1998; Mattessich and Monsey 1992; Van de Ven and Walker 1984) but in reality state and local interaction is far from horizontal or equal. States and local governments continuously struggle for power. The power of state legislatures, the tendency of courts to rule in favor of states, coupled with a history of Dillons Rule, give states extraordinary levels of contr ol over local governments. Some states also feel that cooperation from local governments must be coerced. They dangle funding or statutory requirements over the heads of local governments in exchange for compliance (Wisconsin 2001). Successful collabor ative agreements require states to maintain a level of respect for local governments. States could coerce but that would cause distrust and suspicion. Coerced collaboration will lead to certain failure in the long term.
25 Secondly, homeland security and em ergency management take many of the traditional problems of organizational coordination, multiplies them enormously, and vastly raises the stakes for success and failure (Kettle 2003). There are two main characteristics of homeland security and emergency management that rai se the stakes for collaboration: (1 ) the zero errortolerance environment and; (2 ) the rising levels of responsibility put on emergency management agencies absent any real trade offs or increases in resources. These two characteristics are unique to emergency management and hinder the ability and desire for individual agencies to collaborate with other agencies. A fundamental difference between homeland security and other government programs is that there is zero error toleran ce for mistakes (Kettle 2003).6The amount of pressure and responsibility put on emergency management agencies makes it necessary for them to collaborate Bureaucratic development has historically been the r esult of a series of tradeoffs: for example, getting more of one thing (autonomy) in exchange for less of another (usually funding and resources) (Light 1997). Emergency management operates on a much different system. Agencies are asked to increase our security without sacrificing the existing mission of their organization (Kettl 2003). States and local governments are tasked with Governments can only guarantee their best efforts in crisis situations; they can train, plan, and budget accordingly but they will never be able to handle every obstacle in every situation. Citizens expect 100% protection in times of crisis (Kettl 2003). One need look no further than the Hurricane Katrina debacle to find evidence of this proposition. 6 NASA is an example of this type of organization. While studying zero error tolerance organizations, Frederickson and LaPorte (2002) conclude that complex systems suffer from Type I and Type II errors. Type I errors occur when a system falsely identifies an error and resources are devoted to preventing this false error. Type II errors occur when hazardous situations are not identified. The entire system suffers because resources were not devoted to the incident. Clearly, managers want to minimize Type II errors but successful prevention often means increasing Type I errors. However, the public and many elected officials have low tolerance for Type I errors. The process becomes a vicious cycle when reducing Type I errors translate into additional Type II errors (Kettle 2003, 266).
26 producing more security during high risk incidents without abandoning their original missions. Coordinating for important missions that present themselves daily, coupled with emergency situations that occur only sporadically is a challenge that lies beyond existing organizational theory (Kettl 2003). During the September 11th attack, local officials were expected to continue to respond to traffic accidents, fires, and criminal activity. Terrorist attacks introduce three types of uncertainty into the operations of response agencies (Wise and Nader 2002). First, sta te and local officials must understand the consequences of various weapons. Next, they must plan for a lack of warning time. Finally, they must predict public reactions to various types of hazards (Falkenrath 2000). Luckily, terrorist attacks and natur al disasters occur less often than day to day incidents. It would be inefficient for many state and local governments to create agencies that specifically responded to unexpected events. This is why most state and local governments must expand the missio n of their existing agencies during times of crisis (Kettle 2003). Because state and local governments cannot afford to create new agencies they must instead generate greater levels of collaboration amongst themselves to solve high risk problems and ameli orate environmental uncertainty. State and Local Policy Development Policy development is the process whereby policy makers choose between a set of alternatives to resolve a public problem (Stewart et al. 2008). When developing a statewide emergency comm unications policy, states do not have many alternatives. They could buy their own equipment, rely on local governments, or seek federal grant money. To achieve their ultimate goal, 100% interoperable communications in all localities by an expected date, th ey
27 must achieve an even greater objective; convince all local and state entities to surrender some of their own power, trust the members of the collaborative group, and work as a team. Federal officials put the burden directly on states to create a collaborative environment, even though they may already be plagued by a negative relationship with their local governments. The policy development process is a crucial starting point for facilitating and improving or developing a collaborative relationship. I n many instances, the success or failure of a policy can be traced back to its original design (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004). In 2007, the federal government began requiring all states to develop a S tatewide C ommunications Interoperability P lan (SCIP). Th e SCIP affects all federal, state, local, and non governmental public safety and emergency management agencies operating in a particular state, from the state police to tribal fire stations and private ambulance services. The SCIP serves as the test policy in this analysis because its development provides an excellent example of a high stakes policy where state and local governments were required to come together and develop a shared plan. States who did not take advantage of the opportunity that the SCIP p rovided to strengthen relations with local governments and who were ultimately unable to form a collaborative bond as a result of the SCIP, may need to revaluate their capacity to collaborate on other policies. There is a lot at stake in the development of a successful SCIP. As a major piece of public policy, the goal of the SCIP is to coordinate seamless communications among the states first responders through development of a statewide communications network or by patching or bridging current systems. The SCIP has specific implications for each individual state. In Washington, the SCIP is a blueprint for the states first ever wireless communications network. In Louisiana, the SCIP
28 outlines a plan worth $200 million to expand, complete, and maintai n the states current wireless network. New Yorks communications plan, outlined in the SCIP, was worth over $1 billion. Furthermore, many states have specifically established permanent governing bodies and committees through legislative or executive actio n to develop and implement the SCIP. States began writing the SCIPs mid 2007 and turned the final version into DHS by that December. SCIPs range in length from 100 to 900 pages. The development of the SCIP was a monumental undertaking for most sta tes. Prior to its development, only a handful of states had written a similar communications plan. Unfortunately, most states had not ever assessed their communications capabilities, nor had they even begun to formulate a statewide plan to coordinate eme rgency management efforts. States as populated as California and states with smaller populations like Arkansas, all see the SCIP as a guide for statewide planning. More than one state described the SCIP as the glue holding together and guiding various i nteroperability efforts (CalSCIP). Once again, the SCIP development process provided an opportunity for states to truly develop a piece of substantial policy with their local governments. Before the development process began, each state expressed the d esire to include voices from state, local, tribal, NGOs, and the federal government in the process so that all stakeholders would feel a vested interest in the final policy. Through the SCIP, states can persuade local entities through incentives, manipula tion, or force. The policy tools that states bring to the development process are entirely their prerogative. However, academic literature and practical experience show that some tools are more effective than others at facilitating collaboration. T he policy development process is a crucial starting point from which states have the opportunity to persuade local governments to work with them by employing policy tools that encourage collaboration.
29 Research Questions and Methods This research seeks to under stand why some states are able to form a collaborative bond and develop successful policy while others are not. The overarching theme of collaboration is explored throughout this dissertation through analysis of two focused research questions. These ques tions, either separately or in conjunction with one another, help us better understand what is necessary for successful collaboration. The first research question will be explored in C hapters 2 and 3 while the second research question will be addressed in C hapter 4. Research q uestion #1: Do high levels of collaboration during the policy development process increase the likelihood of successful policy outcomes? The policy development process can be reduced into a series of inputs and outc omes (Easton 1957). The outcome of i nteroperability policy is clear: to reach the goal of complete and seamless emergency communications for all public safety personnel throughout the state. Governance structures that encourage local participation, development of technology that can be utilized throughout the state, support for local governments in their efforts to acquire funding, and strong leaders who support the project and see it through to fruition, are all policy inputs that have the potential to fac ilitate collaboration. In this sense, inputs are not simply items that go into a policy to achieve a particular outcome or goal (Birkland 2005) ; they also serve as a catalyst for gathering support and producing successful outcomes. States may be able to r everse a negative relationship by offering support and the aforementioned resources to cautious local governments. In C hapters 2 and 3, eight states are evaluated based on their capacity to collaborate via structured case studies. These cases illustrate whether states were able to successfully encourage local buy in through the use of collaborative inputs, such as decentralized governance structures, technology, funding, training, mutual aid, and leadership.
30 The cases also take into account political systems (Easton 1957) or factors acting against collaborative inputs that may hinder or help the success of the policy. For example, while states may make every effort to act in a collaborative manner, the nature of the states relationship with its cities or counties may make collaboration difficult. In these cases, what are states doing to resolve these issues? Collaborative inputs and political systems are discussed more fully in the Ex planation of Terms portion of C hapter 2. Research q uestion # 2: How does the structure of relationships between organizations during the policy development process contribute to the success or failure of a policy? Network analysis techniques are utilized to determine exactly who was encouraged to participate in th e development process. Data for this chapter was collected from the SCIPs, meeting minutes, and other state and local documents. What local organizations were involved? Was involvement representative of a cross discipline approach? Who truly has the most power over the development process; is it the state or some other gate keeping organization? Policy development by network is discussed more fully in Chapter 4. Data c ollection Data for this analysis was obtained from SCIPs, interviews with stat e and federal officials, the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), the National Governors Association (NGA), meeting minutes and various state and local documents such as executive orders. Information regarding each states current and long term communications plans was derived from a content analysis of the SCIP.7 7 States are required to follow a set of criteria while completing their SCIPs. They must answer specific questions before the SCIP can be approved A list of these questions used in this research are available in Appendix B. SCIPs were acquired directly from state officials
31 or from a search of the internet. States update SCIPs on either a yearly or biannual basis and are not required to distribute the updated reports to federal officials. Unit of Analysis No one state has an interoperability system that is identical to another s tate. Eight states were chosen for developm ent as structured cases studies: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington. State Selection Eight states were chosen based on their ability to produce generalizable statements about collaboration for interoperability in states across the U.S. These eight states will be developed into comparative case studies and utilized in the analysis in C hapter 2 and 3. The results of the cases also inform the research on networ k structure and communication in C hapter 4. This analysis utilizes eight cases based on the replication techniques employed by experimental researchers (Yin 2003). If experimenters have a significant finding based on the results of a single experiment, t hey will choose to replicate the findings by conducting additional experiments. They may even change the conditions surrounding the first analysis to see if the results hold (Yin 2003). The product will be cases with similar results or contrasting results but for predictable reasons (Yin 2003). The number of replications depends on the certainty that the researcher wants to have regarding their multiple case results (Yin 2003). The cases chosen serve a specific purpose within the scope of the research design (Yin, 2003). While random sampling was not necessary, I chose to start my selection of cases by picking from a random sample to ensure the generalizability of the cases selected. Final case selection was based on case study literature which suggests satisfying three criteria for case selection: Selecting comparable cases, selecting cases that vary on the dependent variable, and
32 selecting cases across subgroups (Przeworski and Teune 1970; Lijphart 1975; Kaarbo and Beasley 1999; Yin 2003). Choosi ng comparable cases is the basis for Przeworski and Teunes (1970) most similar systems design. The premise being that similar cases are chosen to minimize explanatory variables. If cases are not comparable, we would not know if variation among cases i s due to the explanatory variable or because of other differences between cases (Lijphart 1975). The states selected in this analysis are comparable because they were all asked to complete the same task, using the same procedure, to reach a similar outcome (produce a workable SCIP which includes local participation), regardless of where they are located. T his research refer s to co llaborative inputs, which are the dependent variables in this analysis, and political system indicators or independent variable s (political history, state demographics, and risk level). When selecting cases I chose states that varied within both of these factors. States were chosen based on whether they have a positive or negative relationship with their local governments. The s tates population may also create difficulties with collaboration and, therefore, population was included as a deciding factor. States are included that have both high and low terrorism and natural disaster risk levels. States with UASI regions have higher risk levels, as categorized by the federal government. Some states with high risk levels, such as Florida, were not included in the analysis because complete data was not available. Finally, cases should represent population subgroups. Researchers sh ould consider choosing cases with an alternative explanation. What the researcher attempts to do is demonstrate that the relationship holds across different subgroups in a population (Kaarbo and Beasley 1999). Analyzing cases that vary according to geogr aphic region allows for an increase
33 in generalizability instead of producing results that are only applicable for a certain area. While I argue that location does not indicate whether a state is more or less likely to collaborate, this analysis would be unable to draw conclusions about trends in certain geographic regions if they were not included.8The following four chapters address the topic of collaboration among state and local governments during the policy development process. Chapter 2 introduces a col laborative model where pol icy inputs are combined with political influences which will hopefully lead to success. In this chapter, I also define the terms that will be utilized during the analysis of each case. Chapter 3 tells th e story of how each state developed a policy that they hope d would increase emergency communications in their state. Comparative case studies are grouped into high, medium, and low categories of success and the factors that lea d to their success or failure is discussed. Chapter 4 uses network analysis to examine the structure of state and local relationships to determine whether this structure played a role in their success. Finally, C hapter 5 examines the results of both rese arch questions and identifies which analysis better helps us understand why collaboration was strong or weak in a particular state See T able 2 1 for a comparison of each state. 8 Results suggest that states in certain parts of the country (south, northwest, northeast) do not necessarily adopt similar structures. In fact, states directly next to ea ch other may have vastly different interoperability plans.
34 CHAPTER 2 COLLABORATION AS A POLICY INPUT Policy development is the process whereby policy makers choose between a set of a lternatives to resolve a public problem (Stewart et al. 2008). Experienced policy makers focus on the goal of the policy, or the expected outcome, and then work backward to create a sound causal model; if I do X then Y will happen. Research question #1 : Do high levels of collaboration during the policy development process increase the likelihood of successful policy outcomes? With regards to interoperability, the expected outcome is clear in every state: to achieve 100% interoperable communications in all localities by an expected date. The alternatives that states must choose from in order to achieve this goal are not necessarily as simple as whether they should buy their own equipment, rely on local governments, or seek federal grant money. The obvious goal is to achieve interoperable communications, but realizing that goal means achieving an even greater feat, that is, all local and state entities must surrender some of their own power, trust the members of the collaborative group, and work as a t eam. Because the federal government makes it the states responsibility to develop a communications plan, the burden falls on the state to create an environment where local and other public safety officials agree to collaborate. David Easton (1957) famously wrote that inputs keep political actions in motion. Inputs are converted by the political system into outputs which have consequences both for the system and for the environment in which the system exists. Simply put, inputs are introduced into the policy making process and after being acted upon by the political system itself, these inputs result in an output which will, with any luck, thoroughly address the public problem. By input, I am referring to things that go into a policy to achieve a pa rticular policy outcome or goal
35 (Birkland 2005). Outputs are things that the policy process produces such as laws, regulations, and rules. Outcomes are al so frequently referred to in the following chapter. Outcomes are the results of the implementatio n of a policy (Birkland 2005). Some outcomes are positive and some are negative and result in unforeseen consequences. However, policy makers, and we will assume for our goals, public safety policy makers, always strive for positive outcomes. Easton ( 1959) believes that there are two types of inputs: demands and supports. Supports are particularly important when we consider collaboration as an input. The state is supporting local public safety agencies when it acts on their behalf. Supportive behavi or may consist of actions promoting the goals, interests, and actions of local public safety agencies (Easton 1957). For example, the state might seek out grant funding specifically for local governments to improve their communications capacity or they c an offer training to aid local use of a statewide communications network. Support can be achieved through many means; state governments can persuade, manipulate, or force, local agencies to adopt the statewide plan. Though a state, or any government for that matter, who relies on force alone to implement its policy is not likely to reach its intended outcome. Easton (1957) suggests that a supportive state of mind is necessary for the maintenance of a political system. States showcase the amount of effo rt that they are willing to put into creating a collaborative environment through the language of the SCIP. From the SCIP, we can get a sense of whether states are truly attempting to include local dialogue in the policy development process. Rather tha n focus on whether a policy maker will decide to build a statewide communications network or buy new radio equipment, these inputs are also seen as opportunities to facilitate collaboration. Policy makers must decide what level of collaboration they plan to
36 devote to the success of the policy. Not only is technology or technical training an input in the traditional sense, states offer technical training to reach the goal of 100% interoperability, but they also serve as a mechanism through which the state can offer support and facilitate collaboration. Consider two states that equally plan to implement a statewide communications network. Both states require local public safety agencies to p urchase equipment that meets federal standards. State A provides technical training throughout the state, teaching local first responders how to use the new equipment and connect to the statewide network. State A stresses the importance of the statewide network and works with local first responders to acquire funding to buy the new equipment. State B assumes that local agencies will provide technical training for their own staff and tells local officials that they must seek out funding on their own. After several months, state officials cannot understand why local governments do not work with them. Unfortunately, this scenario is all too real. Policy makers m ust choose between alternatives to make collaboratio n attractive and seamless or make it difficult. Admittedly, state attempts at collaboration, as well intentioned as they may be, will not always be met with enthusiasm from local governments. The social, historical, and physical environment in the state also influences local willingness to collaborate (Dye 1966). An individual states political sy stem consists of the social, historical, and physical characteristics unique to that state (Dye 1966). The level of collaboration is a function of how well the states inputs (governance structure, technology, funding, training, and mutual aid agreements ) respond to the political systems acting on them. For purpose of this research, the social, historical, and physical environment interacting with collaborative inputs are political history, risk level, and state demographics. Unfortunately,
37 local govern ments with a historical aversion to working with the state will find it difficult to behave differently. As figure 21 suggests, both the inputs and political system act on each other to produce outputs and outcomes. The states political history with i ts local governments is not the only factor contributing to the political system schema. Each states risk level and state demographics, such as city size and racial makeup, all contribute to the success of the collaborative inputs. States with an elevat ed risk for natural or manmade disasters may be able to overcome a bad relationship with the state. States with large autonomous cities may find it difficult to work with the state regardless of whether each entity has a history of cooperation. With enough foresight, state officials can consider their states unique political system when deciding which collaborative inputs to stress. Officials must consider the changing environment and adapt to these specific issues. Explanation of Terms First, it is important to define successful collaboration as it pertains to interoperability. Documents published by DHS suggest that collaboration is successful when local governments have approved the statewide plan and are in the process of implementing the plan i n their jurisdiction (DHS 2008c). At that point, local governments are considered to have sufficiently achieved a reasonable level of buy in. DHS acknowledges that achieving buyin is a process that may take several years to fully attain. They also r ecognize that American federalism, in its current state, makes it difficult for local governments, who wish to maintain autonomy, to fully buyin to the statewide plan. Again, DHS believes that the best method for achieving buyin is to encourage local go vernment participation in all phases of the planning process by implementing a bottom up approach to policy design (DHS 2008c).
38 Interestingly, the word compliance is also used in DHS (2009) documents in conjunction with the term local buy in. DHS encour ages states who have difficulty achieving buyin from their local governments, to develop executive orders mandating compliance, encourage compliance through grant withholding, and passage of legislation that mandates compliance. In other words, if carro t type incentives are not effective, states should not be afraid to use the stick.1In an effort to address gaps in emergency communication at the federal, state, and local levels, Congress requested that the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), l ocated in DHS, develop a plan that would align the planning efforts of all levels of government through a common vision and set of goals (DHS 2008c). The result was the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) which defined a series of goals that establish a minimum level of interoperable communications and deadlines for federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to meet those minimum levels (DHS 2008c). The NECP focuses first on measuring interoperable communications in Urban Area Security Initi ative Regions (UASI). 2 The goals outlined in the NECP are as f ollows: (1 ) By 2010, 90% of all highrisk urban areas within the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) must demonstrate response level UASI regions are large metropolitan areas throughout the Unites States which are considered high risk areas. There are seven Tier 1 high risk areas which include Los Angeles, Bay Area (CA), National Capital Region, Chicago, Newar k (NJ), New York, and Houston (DHS 2008d). The remaining 55 UASIs are set at a Tier 2 threat level. 1 The literature on managerial craftsmanship advises managers to use harsh incentives sparingly. These incentives may be effective at coercing compliance in the short run but will create an envi ronment of mistrust and cause disloyal employees in the long run (Axelrod, 1984; Powell, 1990; Ostrom, 1991). 2 DHS uses a risk methodology to determine risk for urban areas who apply to the Homeland Security Grant Program. Metropolitan areas are judg ed based on intelligence assessments, population size, density, economic impact, and proximity to national critical infrastructure (DHS, 2008d).
39 emergency communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions; (2 ) By 2011, 75% of nonUASI jurisdictions must demonstrate response within one hour; and, (3 ) By 2013, 75% of all jurisdictions must demonstr ate response within three hours. An interview with an official in the Office of Emergency Communications revealed that DHS assumes that local governments who demonstrate these response level qualifications by the deadline have sufficiently bought into the statewide plan (2009). This makes sense when we consider the goals of DHS, to ensure that interoperability is achieved. The federal measure of collaboration may be interesting to readers because, according to the federal government, state and local col laboration i s successful when technical goals have been met. As interested observers, we recognize that meeting technical standards does not translate into organizations that work well together or even work together at all. Participatory measurements ar e used in the analysis to assess whether states and local governments are collaborating. For example, in some states, participation in the sta tewide plan is nearly universal; in others, locals barely contribute. Participation is a powerful indicator becau se it shows that the state was able to gather enough support to encourage involvement. Participation may result from a range of factors including statutory coercion, funding, recent terrorist attacks or natural disasters, and the availability of technolog y. Case analysis will put each factor into context and make it easy to pinpoint which factors play the greatest role to encourage participation. Explanation of Collaborative Inputs Formal governance structure: When an engineer is asked to build a n engine he must first and foremost consider the purpose of the engine so that it can serve the needs of the buyer. Will the engine be used in farm equipment or in a luxury sedan? These considerations greatly influence the type of engine that he will construct. Likewise, when government organizations
40 are constructed, the goals and purpose of the organization determine its structure and also serve as a guide for assessing organizational effectiveness (Litterer 1969). States and local governments were r equired to build a structure for combating emergency communications issues during development of the SCIP. Their current structure is a reflection of the state or local governments needs and goals (Radin 1996). For example, New York City has very differ ent needs than the rest of the State of New York; therefore, New York States organizational structure reflects a variety of considerations specific to states with large cities. The GAO conducted four case studies in 2007 on the progress of state and loc al collaboration. Among those case studies were Florida and New York, who have contrasting organizational structures. Floridas interoperability structure is based on a regional system. Decision making capabilities are supported by a hierarchy of communi cations committees that include local representatives. Local governments are able to use their existing communications systems and are not obligated to use the statewide system unless they need to interoperate with the state or other local governments (GA O 2007). The system is meeting the needs of all parties as indicated by a 95% participation rate among local governments in Florida (GAO 2007). In contrast, New York State officials believed that their pre 2007 governance structure was deterring local g overnments from utilizing the statewide system (NYSCIP 2008). Before 2007, there were several different groups throughout New York that coordinated interoperability. These groups were not connected through a hierarchical or network structure. Individual cities and counties were not willing to relinquish their ability to determine their own interoperability requirements or give up autonomy (GAO 2007). By December 2006 only one agency in New York City and 7 out of 62 counties in New York had decided to pa rtner with the state.
41 DHS recommends that states employ a decentralized governance structure by including local stakeholders in every step of the decision making process. The literature on decentralized organizational structures argues that decentraliza tion is able to expand the number of potential participants in the implementation process (Lipsky 1971; Hjern et al. 1978). This approach emphasizes the importance of street level bureaucrats and locally based organizations to the success or otherwise of policy implementation (Fitz et al. 1994). The decentralized approach takes the emphasis away from control by central authority and places emphasis on interaction at the micro level. Like decentralized structures, networks are also meant to prevent cer tain organizations from feeling subordinate to others (OToole 1996). The network model follows the assumption that the collaborative group is made up of many government agencies, nonprofit and for profit organizations (Agranoff and McGuire 1998). Succe ssful collaboration in a decentralized or network system requires participants to negotiate and adjust their own behavior in order to attain compromise. However, decentralized and network systems are hindered by a lack of accountability as participants ar e required to measure their own progress. In addition, decentralized systems typically do not provide a mechanism for quality assurance and feedback (Adler 2001). The other option available to states is the traditional hierarchical structure which has, until recently, been the most commonly employed organizational structure. Traditional hierarchy assumes that structure will facilitate implementation (Wise 2002). Hierarchy is generally seen as an authoritative means to compel large numbers of peo ple to complete a set of tasks (OToole and Meier 1999). Each member of the hierarchical relationship has specific roles and their
42 performance is assured through accountability standards. Knowledge is treated as a scarce resource and is concentrated at higher levels in the organization (Adler 2001). Modern public administration has moved away from hierarchical coordination, which many feel contradicts the principles of federalism, toward a mixture of network and decentralized structures (Chisholm 1989; Elazar 1991; Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Agranoff 2006). Hierarchy is criticized because it is based on the assumption that collaborating organizations can be identified and that their relationships with one another is understood. Furthermore, hierarchy is based on the assumption that mission and task objectives have been agreed upon (Wise 2002). Research has concluded that hierarchical structures are efficient when the collaborative organizations involved are performing routine tasks rather than tasks involving new knowledge and innovation (Adler 2001). Governance structures and i nteroperability : The OEC began to evaluate and summarize each states governance structure after all 50 states and territories submitted their SCIPs in December of 2007. They found that each states structure could generally be sorted into one of four categories. These categor ies are: ( 1) the Subject Specific Approach; ( 2) the Regional Approach; (3 ) th e Conventional Approach; and, ( 4) the Leveraged Approach (DHS 2008c). The Subject Specific Approach focuses on individual committees that concentrate on issues specific to interoperability such as management, training, technology, and SCIP implementation (DHS 2008c). Committees are composed of experts from around the st ate who work together to solve a specific problem. Some states include regional committees in addition to subject specific committees and working groups. However, the Subject Specific Approach focuses more on gathering information from the subject speci fic committees than collaborating through regional groups
43 (DHS 2008c). The advantage to this approach is that the subject specific committees are able to focus on the entire state instead of a particular area, guaranteeing consistency across regions. The reverse logic is also the disadvantage of this structure; subject specific committees focus on the entire state instead of particular regions which may have specific needs (DHS 2008c). DHS recommends that states who have not alre ady adopted regional comm ittees should consider this option because high levels of practitioner input are necessary for success and involvement will increase local buy in (DHS 2008c). The Regional Approach organizes each area of the state into regional committees. Individual regions report directly to the statewide emergency committee and consist of their own subject specific committees and / or working groups (DHS 2008c). States utilizing the Regional Approach draw on existing planning regions when organizing for inte roperability; for example, regions already designated as public safety regions or UASI regions (DHS 2008c). States who use existing regions will be able to organize quickly. One advantage of the Regional Approach is that it involves a large number of lo cal officials. Regional committees focus on issues plaguing their specific region, making it easier to spot problem areas. However, the focus on regional issues may cause committees to neglect problems pertinent to the entire state. Regional committees may also find it difficult to collaborate with one another (DHS 2008c). Furthermore, states who use this approach must be sure that regional groups focus specifically on interoperability as they will most likely have ma ny other responsibilities. The Conve ntional Approach does not have regional or subject specific committees. One committee is responsible for planning interoperable services for the entire state.
44 The hierarchical structure is the greatest disadvantage of the Conventional Approach because it leaves little room for regional and subject specific input. Buyin may be difficult to achieve because there is insufficient, and in some states, no participation from local officials. The lack of regional input may also lead to a lack of understanding regarding the needs of individual regions (DHS 2008c). The Leveraged Approach is structured like a traditional hierarchy but instead of emergency communications advisory committees and working groups, the Leveraged Approach utilizes existing resources i n state agencies. Membership on each committee consists of state level agency directors and executives (DHS 2008c). States that employ the Leveraged Approach are more likely to save time and resources during the planning stage because this organizational structure makes use of existing state agencies and state personnel. However, the state centered hierarchy of the Leveraged Approach leaves no room for local input and involvement. The lack of regional input may lead to confusion over the needs of specifi c areas. Also, state agency staff may not be able to focus sufficient time and energy on project implementation, especially if their main priority is to focus on law enforcement, fire control, or general emergency management (DHS 2008c). While local inp ut is encouraged to some degree in each organizational model, save for the Leveraged Approach, it is strikingly clear that each model includes an element of hierarchy. The Subject Specific Approach takes the form of a network hierarchy, where many different participants from various backgrounds come together to solve subject specific problems. They form a network of expertise by including participants from across the state. These committees must inevitably report back to the statewide interoperability com mittee but the governance structure and policy development process encourages participants to take ownership in the plan
45 and buyin to the statewide system. The Regional Approach also has the potential to achieve sufficient buyin through a semi decentral ized hierarchy. Sufficient buyin is more likely in an environment where regional groups develop information and make critical decisions even though they must report to a statewide emergency committee. Alternatively, some states feel comfortable maintain ing a traditional hierarchy and therefore, utilize the Conventional Approach. Other states maintain complete control by employing the Leveraged Approach which is state centered hierarchy and leaves insufficient room for local input. The literature on topdown management focuses on coordination, clarity of roles, and monitoring procedures (Scharpf 1993; Wise 2002). These factors are also emphasized in the literature on collaboration but they take on a new role in a collaborative relationship where pow er is horizontal: for example, the relationship between states and local governments (Van de Ven and Walker 1984; Mattessich and Monsey 1992; Bardach 1998). Collaboration becomes even more complex when administrators realize that even decentralized struct ures will need a central position for coordinating communications and disseminating information (Thomson and Perry 2006). Adding hierarchy and structure into the governance system does not necessarily mean that the result must be authoritative or constra ining (Huxham and McDonald 1992). Collaboration is complex because participation is typically (not always) voluntary and participants are autonomous. These factors limit the effectiveness of traditional hierarchy because success is based on personal rela tionships and contractual agreements (Huxham and McDonald 1992; OToole 1996; Powell 1990). However, creating structures does imply that participants are directly responsible for reaching agreement and following through on decisions made for the group (Gr ay 1985). Successful collaboration includes participants who are willing to monitor
46 themselves and each other and are willing to sanction noncompliant partners (Thomson and Perry 2006). Accomplishing these goals requires at least some degree of centralization. Organizations who decide to collaborate must agree to make joint decisions about the rules that will govern their relationship (Thomson and Perry 2006). Collaborative intergovernmental partners must work collectively to develop sets of rules to d ecide which organizations or individuals will make decisions, what information must be reported, and how costs and benefits will be distributed to members (Ostrom 1991). In essence, participants must create a centralized structure to reach consensus and accomplish goals (Wood and Gray 1991). The previous example of Floridas regional organizational structure suggests that creating a hierarchy has become a complicated process. Hierarchy is no longer the centralized pyramid that it once was. While the State of Florida provides the leadership and resources to sustain interoperability they must also respect the autonomy and ideas of local governments if they want to continue successful long term collaborative efforts. The key to getting states and local gove rnments to accomplish joint collaborative goals is to find the right balance between coordination through hierarchy and building relationships; using a mixed method approach to address an age old problem. In this analysis, utilization of the Regional Approach indicates that highest level of collaboration. The Subject Specific approach is also highly collaborative, as long as the committees include local actors and not simply governing board members. The Leveraged and Traditional approaches indicate that the state is not as willing to collaborate. This assertion leads to the first proposition in the model. A combination hierarchical and network approach will yield greater levels of collaboration. Governance structures should specifically include regio nal councils and/or subject specific committees with high levels of local participation.
47 Leadership : Many argue that the most essential component of successful long term collaboration is strong leadership (Wood and Gray 1991; Mattessich and Monsey 1992; Bardach 1998; Linden 2002; Lewis 2001). Virtually every success made through collaborative agreements can be traced back to a group or individual leader. Bardach (1998) writes that success is not a product of individual will alone but is a product of t he interaction between individual will and certain conditions in the surrounding environment. This statement is profoundly applicable to this research. It suggests that certain conditions must be present for successful collaboration but the influence of leaders, or what he calls purposive practitioners, is the final ingredient around which all the conditions come together. Successful leaders must possess many qualities. Handbooks on excellence in management recommend that leaders have a compelling v ision and clear performance goals. Leaders in collaborative agreements ensure that all parties are represented during the deci sion making process and build mechanisms for feedback and quality assurance into the system (Lewis 2001). Leaders have the oppo rtunity to create a sense of shared purpose among participants (Linden 2002). Wood and Gray (1991) argue that the main role of the leader is that of a convenor or coordinator. The convenors job is to identify the key stakeholders and facilitate conditions which will entice these stakeholders to come to the proverbial table and collaborate. The convenor must have legitimate authority in the eyes of participants (Wood and Gray 1991). They must take an unbiased approach to the problem and carry out their r ole with fairness so as not to lose credibility among participants (Mattessich and Monsey 1992). The convenor must appreciate the collaborative efforts and goals of the group (Gray 1989; Wood and Gray 1991). DHS suggests that each state hire a full time interoperability coordinator (DHS 2008c). A full time interoperability coordinator can focus exclusively on interoperability issues and can
48 build close relationships with stakeholders. According to officials at the OEC, a coordinator is most effective i f they are unassociated with the governors office or another state agency. The National Governors Association (NGA) (2009b) believes that states with statewide governing bodies or State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC) will generate high le vels of collaboration. SIECs are typically composed of representatives from state and local agencies. They are created by formal legislation or executive order and in some states provide the only means of gathering data from local governments. It is als o possible for members of the SIEC to play a leadership role. Keeping all of the above information regarding leadership in mind, the second proposition states that a strong figurehead, such as a governor, can create a sense of shared purpose and facilita te collaboration by including all relevant parties. Technology: Several states have a statewide interoperability network in place and others do not, mainly because of a lack of funding or geographical constraints. Statewide interoperability networks are usually provided by a private company such as Motorola or SunCom and managed by the state SIEC. In many states, local governments are not required to connect to the statewide network unless there is an emergency situation where communication with o fficials from other jurisdictions is necessary. States with mountainous and less densely populated regions have a difficult time including all localities in a statewide network. In addition, many densely populated regions do not have the necessary funding to buy the correct equipment to connect with the network. Funding is often one barrier to the creation of a statewide network. As mentioned in C hapter 1, many local governments have old equipment which does not operate on the same frequency as newer equipment. The federal government has designated Project 25 (P25) as the
49 new standard for design and manufacturing of all new public safety radio equipment. Equipment that is P25 complaint must meet a minimal set of requirements. Organizations with P25 c omplaint radios can communicate with one another (project25.org). However, at $4,000 to $5,000 per radio, it is not possible for all public safety agencies to buy new equipment. States with an interoperability network have an advantage over those who do not. If the state provides access to an established network then it will be easier for local governments to connect with the state. However, states without networks should not be penalized; as mentioned, statewide networks are not reliable or appropriate in all states. States can make up for a lack of statewide technology by taking action to patch local radios, help local governments swap radios, or by seeking out grant funding for local governments to buy new radio systems. Based on the information disc ussed regarding the role of technology in the collaborative process, proposition 3 asserts that states with established statewide technology networks will more easily be able to collaborate. States without statewide networks can facilitate collaboration by finding an alternative method for bridging or patching existing technology. Funding: The degree of state dominance over fiscal matters plays a significant role in determining local willingness to collaborate (Stephens 1974; Nathan and Lago 1990; Zimmerman 1995). Throughout the past 50 years, local and state funding from the federal government has cycled through increases in federal grants in aid through President Johnsons creative federalism to the top sided federalism of President Nixon, whe re federal and state spending grew faster than local. Finally, the fendfor yourself federalism of the Reagan era has set the tone for decreases in local aid throughout the 90s and into the present (Nathan and Lago 1990). The current recession has forc ed states and local governments to reevaluate their
50 financial situation. In 1990, Pagano wrote that successful state and local collaboration depends on the fiscal health of both entities. In other words, bad fiscal health equals bad relationships. C lassic liberalism suggests that organizations enter into collaborative situations because without collaboration they would not be able to achieve their own goals (Thomson and Perry 2006). Classic liberalism has also been described in terms of dependency t heory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Dependent collaborative agreements are formed because certain organizations control critical resources (Wood and Gray 1991). Participating organizations take chances to obtain necessary resources for their own self inte rest by negotiating with the competing interests and value systems of other organizations. Huxham and McDonald (1992) argue that self interest is necessary for successful collaboration because it provides a means for the organization to justify why they ha ve become part of the collaborative effort. Bardach (1998) writes that collaboration is only valuable when it produces better organizational performance or lower costs than can be had without it. This is absolutely the case with interoperability. Loc al governments and many states do not have the necessary funding to sustain interoperability plans. States rely on the federal government and local governments rely on the states because they are not eligible to apply for grant funding on their own with t he exception of UASI regions. Stephens (1974) measures financial responsibility by determining where the majority of local expenditures originate. In a centralized state, the funding for the majority of local services are paid for by the state. This funding comes either directly from the state or from federal aid funneled through the state. In a decentralized state, local governments pay for most public services through their own revenue or from grants received directly from the federal government (S tephens 1974).
51 In the case of interoperability, funding comes from two potential sources, the federal government and the state. Federal funding comes in the form of both grants in aid and block grants from DHS. It is usually distributed to the stat e who then allocates it to local organizations. Completion of the SCIP allows local governments to receive Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant funding (PSIC) and Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funding. HSGP grant funding is allocated via an 80/20 rule; 80% of the award must go to the local government within 45 days of receipt.3 HSGP funding includes UASI funding and State Homeland Security Program funding to tribal nations. For example, in 2009 Texas received $60 million in HSGP funding from DHS; $48 million of which was awarded to local governments. Texass five UASI regions were awarded $73.3 million. Texas was not awarded tribal government funding.4PSIC grants include the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) Only State Administrative Agencies (SAA) are eligible to apply for PSIC funding, meaning that local governments must go through the state to ask for funding. The IECGP is awarded to states in order to support goals and plans that align with the SCIP. As an example, Texas was awarded $3.5 million in IECGP funding. 5States are expected to find ways to sustain funding because the federal government will not continue to fund these grants indefinitely (DHS 2008c). Some states have met t his challenge either through one time grants to local governments or designation of an ongoing funding source. Other states have not contributed any funding, and still others have used their funding unwisely. 3 DHS State Contracts and Grant Information http://www.d hs.gov/xgovt/grants/ 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
52 States that adhere to the 80/20 rule are making an effort to fairly distribute funding to local governments. Interestingly, not all states adhere to this rule. Furthermore, some states have developed a comprehensive funding plan while others have not begun the process. Creation of an equitabl e funding plan will signal to local governments that the state has their best interest in mind and can be trusted to maintain local programs. We can ascertain whether states are creating a collaborative environment through the funding process by researching whether the state is adhering to the 80/20 rule, by looking at states commitment to funding projects, or by analyzing the plan that the state has in place to obtain future funding. Each factor is included in this analysis. DHS (2007) asserts that l ocal governments who lack funding will see the statewide plan as an unfunded mandate and be less likely and unwilling to collaborate. Therefore, proposition 4 states that provide a continuous designated funding source will encourage participation. In other words, states in good fiscal health can expect positive relationships with its local governments. Statewide training: DHS (2008d) states that increasing opportunities for professional development will not only keep practitioners abreast of current developments but will also give them a chance to learn about the statewide communications plan and interact with state officials. I record whether training opportunities are made available to local practitioners. More importantly, how often is training avai lable and to whom? In some states, training opportunities are only accessible to certain regions and specific types of emergency management personnel. Proposition 5 states that opportunities for professional development will keep local government s inform ed, increase chances for networking, and facilitate collaboration. SOPs and MOUs: When we discuss collaboration among states and local governments to achieve interoperability, communication is the resource that must be shared and distributed
53 amo ng participants. New Yorks performance during the 9/11 attacks is an example of the failures associated with non existent formal communication. For Gray and Wood (1991), formal communication is a means for increasing information among the participants i n a collaborative effort. Structures, such as standard operating procedures (SOPs), and memoranda of understanding (MOU) are put into place to facilitate formal communication. Communication is also facilitated by relationships among participants. Himmleman (1996) describes communication as the willingness of participants to share information for the good of the partnership even if they risk compromising individual autonomy. Members of a successful collaborative group interact often, update one another, discuss issues openly, and convey necessary information to one another (Mattessich and Monsey 1992). A re formal relationships (SOP and MOU) present in each state and are they available to local governments statewide? What can these agreements tell us about the likelihood of success between collaborati ve partners? As such, proposition 6 states that uniform agreements facilitate communication, increasing collaboration. Statutory authority, sanctions, and incentives: Most statewide interoperability pla ns are supported by legislation or executive order. Legislative or executive action brings legitimacy to the statewide plan and encourages local governments to accept the plan and begin implementation (NGA 2009b; Henry 2010). Legislative or executive action also gives governance bodies, such as the SIEC, the formal authority to act (Henry 2010). They allow the governance body to negotiate MOUs, seek funding, coordinate statewide efforts, oversee equipment purchases, and reduce redundancy. Governance bodies that are not backed by legislative or executive action could face mistrust which would lead to poor management of the statewide plan.
54 However, some states use executive orders and legislation as sanctions to force local governments to cooperate wi th the state. For example, South Carolina is exploring legal options to require local governments to adopt the Palmetto 800 Network. This analysis takes note of which states are using legislative and executive action to strengthen collaborative bonds and which states are using it to coerce (SC SCIP). Based on the above information, proposition 7 asserts that legislative or executive action brings legitimacy to the plan or governing body and encourages local officials to accept the policy and collaborate. Explanation of Political Systems Political History: Political culture, which varies from one state to another and even within sections of a state, influence the distribution of political power and the exercise of power granted to local units (Zimm erman 1995).6While the federal governmen t and states fought over power and authority in an increasingly federally dominant environment, local governments fought their own battles for greater authority and autonomy. Local discretionary authority refers to the level or amount of independent author ity that local governments are permitted to exercise over affairs within their jurisdiction. Joseph Zimmerman, a former member of the now defunct U.S. Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, is the last author to write at length on the topic of state a nd local These characteristics contribute to either a loss or expansion of local authority. The negative impacts of these characteristics make it more difficult to create a collaborative environment (Zimmerman 1995). 6 Dr. Joseph Zimmerman was formerly a member of the now defunct U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). The Commission closed its doors on September 30, 1996 after 37 years in operation becaus e Congress and the Clinton Administration agreed that its services were no longer necessary.
55 relations.7To what degree states should preempt local authority has been and remains to be a controversial issue (Zimmerman 1981). During the 19th century, local government offici als lobbied the federal government to adopt constitutional protections. They argued that local governments were closer to the people and that increased autonomy would allow citizens greater control over local affairs (Zimmerman 1981; Zimmerman 1995). Unf ortunately, the local bid for constitutional protections was unsuccessful. Without constitutional status, state governments imposed the Ultra Vires Rule on local governments, meaning that they could only exercise the powers given to them explicitly (Zimme rman 1995). Zimmerman (1995) writes that any given state or local political power lies somewhere between the local controlling sphere on one end, where local officials are completely responsible for certain duties, and the state controlling sp here, where state offici als are completely responsible. For example, officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the General Accountability Office (GAO) assert that communication for homeland security will only be achieved if governance ove r the statewide plan lies in the shared state/local sphere (GAO 2007; SAFECOM 2008). 7 The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) has published several reports which measure local discretionary authority. The first, writte n in 1974, looks at the state revenue system as a source of state dominance. States were classified as either dominant, strong, or junior fiscal partners with their local government. This report was revised in 1977 to include indicators of fiscal resourc es and responsibility over expenditures (Zimmerman 1990). Around that same time, University of Missouri professor G. Ross Stephens was also attempting to document quantifiable measures of state authority (Stephens 1974). Stephens (1974) used government ce nsus data to rank states according to three criteria that reflect the distribution of power between states and local governments. These criteria are: .) financial responsibility; 2.) determination of the level which delivers each of 15 major functional activities; and 3.) distribution of public personnel between levels of governments (Stephens, 1974). During the 1980s and early 1990s, the ACIR developed additional measures of local discretionary authority, drawing from Stephens criteria of finance, function, and personnel, adding structure as the fourth criteria. They criticized Stephens use of government census data as too limiting (Zimmerman 1990). Staff analysts at ACIR researched legal documents, state constitutions, statutory provisions, and c ourt decisions to collect their data (Zimmerman 1990). They also collected data through a mail survey sent to local and state officials and state local relations experts. These mail surveys inquired about the officials perception of the local authorit y possessed and utilized by their government.
56 In 1868, Judge John Dillon ruled that municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist ( City of Clinto n vs. Cedar Rapids 1868). Henceforth, Ultra Vires was known as Dillons Rule. Dillons Rule was challenged by Michigan Supreme Court Judge, Thomas Cooley in 1871, who wrote that some rights of local self government are inherent in municipalities ( Peopl e vs. Hurlburt 1871). However, the constitutionality of Dillons Rule was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1903 ( Atkins vs. Kansas 1903) and in 1923 ( City of Trenton vs. New Jersey 1923), stating that Such corporations are the creatures, mere politica l subdivisions of the state...They may only exert such powers as are expressly granted to them. Local governments were finally legitimized as a third partner under Lyndon Johnson in the mid 1960s (Kincaid 1991). During that time, some local governm ents went directly to the federal government for funding. The federal government began allocating grant money directly to local governments giving them political leverage over states (Kincaid 1991). In 1978, all 50 governors asked Jimmy Carter to stop local governments from bypassing states because they felt that the hierarchical relationship between states and local governments was the most effective means for managing scarce resources (Kincaid 1991). The governors plea to Jimmy Carter was successful a nd local governments have had limited success in reclaiming their partnership status following through the Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton years (Kincaid 1991). The legal relationship between states and local governments can tell us about the history of their relationship and the likelihood that states will be willing to give local go vernments increased authority. The ACIR developed measurements in 1980 (Zimmerman 1995) which ranks states according to whether they have given local governments: ( 1 ) consti tutional grants of
57 power; ( 2) statutory grant of powe r; ( 3) or they can be considered a Dillons Rule state.8Interoperability politics: A section on the current political context of communications interoperability helps iden tify some of the challenges and even some of the positive contributions of political actors in each state. Case analysis provides the con text from which we can draw conclusions regarding whether the historical distribution of power continues to influence state and local relationships. Risk l evel : Civic republicanism suggests that organizations entering into collaborative agreements are doing so because of a commitment to a greater purpose. Successful collaborative partners share a similar vision, an agreed upon mission, objectives and strategy (Mattessich and Monsey 1992). Differences between organizations are seen as a basis for deliberation in order to arrive at mutual understanding, a collective will, trust and sympathy and the implementation of shared preferences (March and O lsen 1989). Emergency management agencies are what Thomas (1997) refers to as epistemic communities. Epistemic communities are like minded networks of professionals whose authoritative claim to consensual knowledge provides them with a unique source of power in the decision making processes (Thomas 1997). These facts put intrastate collaboration to achieve interoperability on a different level than dependent collaboration, which typically includes organizations with divergent goals and resources. It is quite possible that emergency management organizations agree to collaborate to achieve effective interoperability because of a commitment to protecting their citizens in the event of an emergency, no matter the administrative costs. 8 Few states strictly adhere to Dillons or Home Rule. The ACIR data and the National Association of Counties data will help to understand the context behind the history of the state.
58 Why do local and state governments decide to collaborate? Environmental complexity, uncertainty, and turbulence are just a few of the many obstacles facing organizations (Wood and Gray 1991; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Perhaps states create an environment conducive to collaboration to partner with local governments and create a united front against factors which threaten to endanger public safety. Likewise, local governments believe in a central goal or mission public safety and depend on the resources of other organizations to meet those goals. All in all, state and local agencies will collaborate because of a dependence on resources, and the underlying motivation to seek those resources is a deep commitment to public safety. Wise (2002) argues that a states ri sk level and the frequency with which natural or manmade disasters occur, can play a role in how eager states and local governments are to collaborate. For instance, a local government which has recently experienced a terrorist attack or a natural disaster will feel a sense of urgency and is therefore, more receptive to collaboration. An example of this is Hurricane Hugo which hit South Carolina in 1989 (SC SCIP). The devastating aftermath of Hurricane Hugo convinced the State of South Carolina and many of its local governments to work collaboratively and establish the Palmetto 800 Network. States with a high risk for natural disasters or terrorist attacks will be more willing to collaborate. The number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 UASI regions in the state is indicative of the risk level designated to each state by the federal government. Regions are designated as UASI areas because they are at greater risk of terrorist attacks or natural disasters. The SCIPs provide information regarding which hazards state s are planning for and the frequency with which they have occurred in the past. I also use data collected from the National Hurricane Center, the US Geological Survey and NOAA. Risk level and frequency will play a role in a states willingness to collaborate and may encourage greater cooperation.
59 State demographics: State demographic information provides a clearer picture of the forces influencing local authority in each state. States with many local entities will have difficulty creat ing a collaborative environment: for example, Illinois with 6,722 local governments versus Hawaii with only four. States with a large number of local units will find it difficult to incorporate input from hundreds of stakeholders and will resort to a traditional hierarchy to maintain control (Zimmerman 1995). The previous section details the questions that will be examined in the case studies. The reader should expect each case to answer the following questions Governance s tructure: What organizational structure is ut ilized? Regional Approach, Subject Specific Approach, Conventional Approach, and Leveraged Approach. Leadership: ( 1 ) Is there a full time interoperability coordinator; ( 2 ) Is the governor or some other indi vidual taking on leadership roles ? Technology: I s a statewide network available? If not, how is the state helping local governments make connections? Funding: ( 1) Does the st ate adhere to the 80/20 rule; ( 2) What federal funding has been allocated and has the state set aside a d esignated funding sourc e; (3 ) Is the state developing a plan to continue funding? Training: Is technical training available to local governments? To whom and how often? SOP and MOU : 1) Are mutually agreed upon formal communications and operational structures in place? Statut ory authority/ incentives : ( 1) Is there a legislative or executive order establishin g the statewide plan or SIEC; ( 2) Do states use legislation or executive orders as coercion; ( 3) What incentives do locals have to work with the state? Case Analys is Eastons policy development model is explored in Chapter 3 by utilizing the comparative case method. Stonecash (1996) writes that covariation studies have advanced our knowledge of state politics but they do not explain the political process or policy outcomes. Stonecash (1996)
60 asserts that the most effective means for understanding policy outcomes is to move from covariation to the comparative case study method. Alexander George (1979) writes that the comparative case method can best be described as a method of structured, focused comparison. The method is focused because it deals selectively with only certain aspects of the caseand structured because it employs questions to guide the data collection in that case (George 1979). The case method can be utilized for several different p urposes including: (1) simply narrating an event; ( 2) using a theory to explore and interpret a case; ( 3) u sing cases to develop theory; ( 4 ) usin g cases to refine theory, and 5) using cases to test theory (Kaarbo and Beasley 1999). The purpose of the case analysis in this research is to test a theory or confirm the arguments regarding collaboration made in the literature on intergovernmental relations. The cases will be confirming in the sense that they either supp ort the predictions of the hypotheses or call them into question (Eckstein 1975). The advantages of case study research are better understood when we contrast the logic used to employ case studies versus the logic used when developing large n studies (Y in 2003). Large n studies are typically employed when a researcher wishes to determine the frequency of a particular phenomenon or make an educated argument about the probability that an event will occur (Yin 2003). Case study research helps us underst and the question why or how rather than how much or how frequently a phenomenon occurs. In case study research, the context of the case is the most important consideration. Qualitative Measurement of Collaborative Success Pattern matching is a process whereby a theoretical pattern is matched with an observed pattern occurring in the data (Trochim 1989). The theory is supported or rejected based on the extent to which the observed patterns match the theoretical patterns.
61 The literature on intergovernm ental collaboration can be used as a guide to develop a model of the ideal collaborative state. The ideal collaborative state uses its governance structure, leadership abilities, standard operating procedures, financial resources, training opportunities technology, and legislative or executive mandates as policy inputs to increase its political capitol and improve local buy in. Furthermore, this ideal state has the perfect combination of political history, risk factors, and state demographic information acting on the aforementioned policy inputs to increase the likelihood of collaboration between the state and its local governments .9The written product contain s an overview of general background information regarding interoperability in each case state. Finally, the report include s a section that tests and explains each pattern in an attempt to match the hypothesized patterns wit h observed patterns (Yin 2003). F igure 26 outlines the ideal pattern that, according to the literature, each state should adopt to increase the likelih ood of successful collaboration. Each of the eight cases is categorized as either a high, moderate, or low collaborative state. In order for a state to be considered highly collaborative it must have given considerable effor t to include the greatest number of collaborative inputs as politically and administratively possible. In a highly collaborate state, either an input or political system or combination of inputs and political systems will be the factor that determine whether that state was successful. For instance, the highly collaborative states in this analysis were able to secure designated, long term funding sources or were faced with a high risk situation that led to collaboration. Moderately collaborative states satisfy a number of the collaborative input and political system requirements but instead of one of these factors leading to success, as in the case of 9 It should be noted that the ideal political state mentioned in this analysis, encompasses factors specific to successful public safety communications policy development and is not a general model for collaboration. The policy inputs necessary for other types of issues, hea lth care, education, transportation, will be slightly different than the inputs discussed here.
62 highly collaborative states, this factor lead to failure For example, many states worked diligently to include local governments or create a highly advanced network, but funding or diverse terrain made it impossible for them to achieve 100% success. In other words, complete success is beyond their control and did not result from a lack of effort. Other st ates included in the moderate category were moderately successful at creating a technological network but were not quite able to garner crucial local buyin because of some other factor. In t he case of one state, organization was difficult because of the sheer number of local government entities. States which are grouped into the low category committed an action or actions that severely hindered the trust of local governments in that state. Not only was their program unsuccessful but they were absolutely unable and unwilling to make the necessary changes to improve a negative relationship with their local governments. Figure 21. Collaboration as a policy input for interoperability policy. Collaborative Inputs Leadership Governance Structure Technology Funding Training SOP MOU Outputs SCIP Outcomes 100% Interoperability This requires collaboration between state, local, tribal, federal, and NGOs who must work together to achieve Political System Political history Current politics Risk level State D emog raphics
63 Table 2 1. Case selection. L ocation Relationship UASI Risk Level Population Arkansas South Strong county No Low Small California West No trust Yes High Large / diverse Louisiana South Strong county Yes High / natural disaster Medium / diverse Illinois Midwest Local autonomy Yes High Large New York Northeast City vs. state Yes Very High Large / diverse Texas Southwest Many counties Yes High Large Rhode Island Northeast Few local govts Yes Very Low Small Washington Northwest Home rule Yes Moderate Medium Figure 22. Subjec t specific organizational structure Governor Statewide Interoperability Committee Training Committee Working Group Working Group Procurement Committee Working Group Working Group Technology Committee Working Group Working Group
64 Figure 23. Regional governance structure. Figure 24. Conventional organizational structure Governor Statewide Emergency Committee Region 1 Working Group Working Group Region 2 Working Group Working Group Region 3 Working Group Working Group Governor Statewide Interoperability Committee Interoperability Advisory Committee Working Group
65 Figure 25. Leveraged organizational structure Governor State Department of Homeland Security State Public Safety Agency State Police Emergency Services
66 Figure 26. Policy inputs present in the ideal collaborati ve state. Mixed hierarchical and network approach will yield greater levels of collaboration (Chisholm 1989; Elazar 1991; Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Agranoff 2006). Structures should include regional councils and/or subject specific committees with high levels of local participation. Governance Structure Leaders ensure that all parties (or as many as possible) are included in the decision making process (Lewis 2001). A strong figurehead, such as a governor, can create a sense of shared purpose (Wood and Gray 1991; Linden 2002). Leadership States with established statewide technology networks bring local and state agencies together. States without statewide networks can facilitate collaboration by bridging existing technology (DHS 2008d). Technology States with a history of relaxed fiscal oversight will increase local collaboration. A designated funding source will decrease uncertainty and encourage collaboration. Collaboration is valuable when it produces lower costs for all participants (Stephens 1974; Nathan and Lago 1990; Zimmerman 1995). Good fiscal health = good relationships (Bardach 1998). Funding Opportunities for professional development will keep local governments informed, increase chances for networking, and facilitate collaboration (DHS 2008d). Training Uniform agreements facilitate communication; increasing collaboration (NGA 2010). SOP and MOU Legislative or executive action brings legitimacy to the plan or governing body; encouraging local officials to accept the policy (NGA 2009b and 2010). Statutory Authority, Sanctions, and Incentives
67 Figure 27. Political systems present in the ideal collaborative state. Local governments who have historically been granted high levels of discretion are more willing to collaborate (Zimmerman1995). Positive use of political current power on the part of the state will result in increased collaboration (Zimmerman 1995). Political History and Current Politics A high risk level will facilitate collaboration. Organizations collaborate to reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer and Salancik,1978; Wood and Gray 1991; Wise 2002). Risk Level States with fewer local units and large, autonomous cities, will find it easier to collaborate (Zimmerman 1995). State Demographics
68 CHAPTER 3 COLLABORATION BY STATE For the moment we only ask whether the members of the group that we are examining are sufficiently oriented toward each other to wa nt to contribute their collective energies toward pacific settlement of their varying demands. David Easton 1957 Based on the data, each state has been categorized as either a high, moderate, or low collaborative state. As mentioned in the previous ch apter, highly collaborative states include the greatest number of collaborative inputs as politically and administratively possible and have successfully implemented and gathered support for their statewide network. Moderately collaborative states satisf y a number of the collaborative input and political system requirements but instead of one of these factors leading to success, as in the case of highly collaborative states, one or a number of factors lead to failure. States included in the moderate category were moderately successful at creating a communications network but were not quite able to acquire local buy in because of some other factor. States placed into the low category committed an action or actions that severely hindered the trust of loca l governments. Not only was their program unsuccessful but they were absolutely unable and unwilling to make the necessary changes to improve a negative relationship with their local governments. States have been ranked according to whether they satisfy the requirements listed above; t he order should not be consi dered arbitrary. Louisiana and Arkansas are considered highly collaborative states. Rhode Island, Texas, California, Illinois, and Washington are considered moderately collaborative states. Fi nally, New York is a low level collaborative state.
69 Louisiana The origin of Louisianas parishes can be traced back to France in 1712 and then later when the Louisiana territory was passed onto Spain (Rowell 1982). Eleven tribal governments reside in L ouisiana, along with 64 parishes, 314 municipal governments, and 45 special districts (Louisiana Municipal Association). In Louisiana, as in many states, the formation of local governments preceded the state government. All 64 parishes operate under s emiautonomou s home rule (Rowell 1982) ; h ome rule took nearly fifty years to evolve in Louisiana. Before 1974, cities could only perform those responsibilities expressly given to them by the state. This caused anger between the state and city governments and was known to prevent local officials from reacting positively to the state and even their community (Engstrom 1982). The State of Louisiana ratified a new constitution in 1974 which expanded the rights given to local governments with home rule chart ers. This new constitution gave local governments control over the structure, organizations, powers, and functions necessary for the proper management of their locality as long as these decisions did not preempt state law (Rowell 1982). However, home rul e in Louisiana is not absolute. Local governments are forbidden to make any laws that affect school boards, district attorneys, sheriffs, and the clerk of the district court. Local government oversight was originally reserved for the state legislature. Throughout the years, the complexities and expansion of local governments has limited the legislatures ability to oversee cities and parishes (Rowell 1982). Amendments to the 1974 Constitution resulted in the protection of parish government from state c ontrol. The state legislature is now unable to pass laws that apply to only one parish. Furthermore, the legislature cannot force unfunded mandates on local governments without appropriating funds to make up the difference in costs, though this law is rar ely followed (Rowell 1982).
70 In 2001, Louisianas budget included over $210 million in funding assistance for local governments (LACIR 2003). Louisiana only receives .3% of its revenue from local governments as opposed to many states, like New York and C alifornia, who receive a great deal of funding from local sources. Louisianas Homestead property tax exempts 72% of Louisiana homeowners from paying any property taxes and makes it necessary for the state to support local funding (LACIR 2003). Local officials estim ate that they lose $750 million a year because of the exemption, which is far more revenue than the state can provide. Though on average, the state designates $90 million a year to help local governments with revenue lost to the Homestead Exemption (LACIR 2003). A 2003 report from the Louisiana Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (LACIR) concluded that state officials should think seriously about finding alternative sources of revenue. The report also states that Louisian a should be mindful of unfunded mandates and decentralize as much as possible to maintain state and local relationships. Now, more than ever before, it is imperative that state and local governments work cooperatively to secure and develop new partnershi ps and collaborative efforts if basic and emerging new services required to preserve our quality of life are to be funded (LACIR 2003). After Hurricane Katrina, everything changed. Since the hurricane, Louisiana parishes, cities, and the state have been generally successful at collaborating to solve statewide problems (Weitz 2007). Before Katrina, the number of semi autonomous government units in any one locality made it difficult to collaborate (Baker 1982). The aftermath of Katrina illustrated the necessity of resource sharing and mutual cooperation.
71 T he state has recently experienced tropical cyclones, floods, tornados, ice storms, oil spills, hurricanes and other natural disasters. New Orleans is particularly vulnerable because the city was bui lt 8 feet below sea level (NOAA). Louisianas gulf coast is home to the countrys only offshore oil terminal which allows supertankers to offload their cargo. Each parish has major pipelines that distribute oil and gas to the rest of the country. Thi s terminal, along with numerous drilling rigs, is at risk of an oil spill, as evidenced by the BP spill in spring of 2010. Louisiana is also home to 2 of the 4 largest refineries in the U.S. Officials in Louisiana are concerned that these oil related infr astructure sites could be targeted by terrorist organizations (LASCIP). Louisiana is also home to a vulnerable and poor citizenry. While the national average is 12.9%, Louisianas population is 32.1% African American. Louisiana also has a high number of citizens living below the poverty level; 17.6% whereas the national average is 13.2%. Per capita income is $16,912 in Louisiana as opposed to $21,587 nationally (U.S. Census Bureau). All of these factors have made emergency planning for natural disasters a priority for public safety officials in Louisiana. Furthermore, the massive failures associated with the 2005 hurricanes motivated Louisiana officials to rethink their communications capabilities. Natural disasters have been known to dama ge or eve n destroy radio towers, making radio transmissions impossible. The damage to critical infrastructure from the 2005 hurricanes was so extensive that first responders could not even communicate via telephone or cell phone. The aftermath of these hurricanes brought with it the realization that not only were Louisianas emergency responders operating on disparate radio systems, but that a lack of interagency coordination and cooperation had kept them from responding effectively (Warrick 2005).
72 State offic ials from the Governors Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Planning (GOHSEP) began to rebuild Louisianas emergency communications system in February of 2006. Their first step was to call together state and local stakeholders to meet and discuss th e direction of communications and collaboration in the state. Information gathered at the stakeholder meeting was used to develop the SCIP. At that point, Louisiana had not yet established an SIEC. The 2006 workshop took place over the course of three d ays and 120 representatives from 59 of the 64 parishes attended (LASCIP). Officials took several lessons from the stakeholder meeting. First, that their hierarchical emergency management governance structure was not yielding successful results or creat ing a collaborative environment. Second, they found that successful implementation depended on a high level of commitment from leaders across the state. Finally, institutionalizing new technology would be difficult unless they could find a way to merge the technology into the everyday activities of emergency responders. GOHSEP officials believed that by focusing on technology, acquiring funding, and institutionalizing a statewide structure, they could increase local government buy in and meet their goals (LASCIP). Interoperable communications was a priority for Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco. In an address to the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, Governor Blanco confessed that the hardest lesson that Louisiana officials learned was that a lack of attention paid to interoperable communications before the storm proved to be a deadly mistake. She urged Congress to consider federal funding for this and many other critical issues (Blanco 2005) Governor Blanco also established the SIEC by Executive Order and charged this group and GOHSEP with the development of a statewide communications network (Malykhina and Hoover 2006).
73 Oddly, the 2006 Legislative Session was not successful for emergency communications. Senate Bill 739, sponsored by Senator Walter Boasso would have statutorily enacted the SIEC and have created an Office of Interoperability whose duty would have been to develop and implement a comprehensive statewide communications plan. This bill was deferred in the House Judiciary Committee and never reconsidered. Similarly, House Bill 450 and House Bill 619 would have statutorily required GOHSEP to develop a statewide network. Neither of these bills made it out of committee (Louisia na Legislature). One can only speculate that this lack of support from the legislature had something to do with Governor Blanco. Luckily, officials at GOHSEP took the initiative to develop a communications plan on their own. Bobby Jindal became Governor in January of 2008. At that point, development of Louisianas Wireless Interoperability Network (LWIN) was well underway and Jindal made its completion one of his top priorities (Radio Resource 2010). The 2008 Louisiana Legislature promptly passed Act 797 which formally established the Office of Interoperability within GOHSEP. The Act also created the Assistant Deputy Director of Interoperability position and formally established the SIEC as a subcommittee under the Unified Command Group, an emergency management governing body whose membership includes high ranking cabinet officials and agency heads. SIEC Chairman, Brant Mitchell, attributed this success to newly appointed GOHSEP Director Mark Cooper (Mitchell 2009). Cooper had been the former Emergency Coordinator for Los Angeles County California. A Louisiana native and LSU alumni, Cooper called Jindals transition team and asked if they would consider him for an emergency management position (Office of the Governor). They did indeed and the result was an emergency planning agency with a focus on interoperability.
74 Whatever the cause, whether it was political or simply a case of excellent timing after a catastrophic natural disaster, both the federal government and the State of Louisiana has fi nancially supported full implementation of LWIN. Since September 11th, Louisiana has allocated over $76 million to public safety related expenditures. The state has successfully secured funding for the LWIN project as a result of the devastation associated with Hurricane Katrina. Development of LWIN is one of Louisianas top funding priorities. The state has utilized federal, state and local homeland security grants, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants, and UASI Region 1 and 2 grants to develop and maintain LWIN. In 2006, FEMA issued a purchase order to Motorola for $15.9 million to repair current infrastructure in Katrina affected areas. In December of 2006, the Louisiana Legislature created the Louisiana Interoperable Communications F und within the Louisiana Treasury to construct, administer, operate, and maintain LWIN. The Louisiana Legislature appropriated $9.8 million in March 2007 and an additional $11.5 in June for recurring maintenance and operational costs. In 2008 and 2009 the legislature appropriated $38 million ($14 million federal and $24 state) in funding for LWIN maintenance and expansion. During the 2009 2010 fiscal year, $60 million was appropriated to continue implementation (GOHSEP and LASCIP). This funding went towa rds installation and maintenance costs for LWIN. Another $8 million was then appropriated to purchase radios and consoles for both state and local use (Mitchell 2009). The SIEC continues to pursue federal earmarks for communication system enhancements. While successful, LWIN is not inexpensive. LWIN maintenance costs increase whenever the system expands. Maintenance and operations costs in 2008 were $4.9 million, $8.3 million in 2009, and $11.5 million in 2010 (GOHSEP).
75 Louisiana has fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments. Some local governments opted for the state to expend funding on their behalf. The state and these local governments developed MOUs to guide the distribution of funding (NTIA). SmartZone was Louisianas first statewide communications system and was installed in 1996, well before Hurricane Katrina. SmartZone operated on an 800MHz analog frequency band. After a few years, the 800 MHz frequency band became congested and channe ls were no longer available in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and surrounding areas. Furthermore, manufacturers stopped producing equipment that functions on an 800MHz frequency (LASCIP). After Hurricane Katrina, public safety and communications officials in L ouisiana began developing LWIN, a 700/800 MHz P25 compliant communications system. The state has installed 83 stationary towers and has access to 5 mobile trailers that can move anywhere in the state and can send out signals to nearby agencies. The state opted for mobile trailers because towers do not survive hurricanes or other natural disasters. These mobile dispatch centers can move about the state without disrupting services and can be powered by natural gas or diesel generators if necessary. About 90% of the state is covered by the network. LWIN currently serves 51,000 users including federal, state, and local personnel. Approximately 1,000 users are added each month (Radio Resource 2010). The technology employed by LWIN is expensive but complete coverage throughout the state is a priority. Areas that have not been integrated into LWIN can continue to use the SmartZone system. LWIN received positive public attention during the BP Oil Spill. Brant Mitchell, Chairman of the SIEC and GOHSEP Int eroperability Coordinator, reached out to Texas and Alabama to create the Gulf Wireless Information Network (Gulf WIN).
76 The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) already had access to LWIN and was using the system for everyday operations. Mitchell met with the USCG co mmander immediately after the DeepWater Horizon explosion in April and offered to include Coast Guard officials. GOHSEP began by adding another zone and installing 16 additional talk groups to the LWIN system. GOHSEP then began patching together other compatible networks to form a regional system. Mississippi and Louisiana formed an agreement which enabled them to patch the Mississippi Wireless Information Network (MSWIN) to LWIN. Next, Travis and Harris counties in Texas (Houston) were asked to partici pate; both counties use compatible P25 systems but coverage does not overlap. Inclusion of Travis and Harris counties required the installation of a digital interface that was able to connect both counties to LWIN. Motorola supplied the digital interface equipment at no charge and were heavily involved in the expansion project (Radio Resource 2010). Louisiana is currently working with Arkansas to connect AWIN to LWIN. The State of Louisiana employs a combination regional system accompanied by subject specific committees on the SIEC. The SIECs purpose, as stated in Act 797, is to design, construct, and assist in administering and maintaining the statewide plan for first responders in the event of an emergency, natural disaster, terrorist attack, an d day to day operations. Louisiana is also divided into 8 Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Regions. A representative from each region is included in the membership of the SIEC. The SCIP must be updated annually and the SIEC is the office of r ecords for SCIP development. The SIEC can recommend additions or deletions to the SCIP but has no authority to make changes to the plan or amend its own charter. Only the Unified Command Group (UCG) can make changes to the SCIP and only the governor can a mend the charter (LASCIP).
77 The SIEC has established advisory committees for specific issues. These subject specific advisory committees include: budget and finance, policy and planning, and technology. The committees assist the entire SIEC in its responsibility to address the needs of local and regional organizations. The SIEC continuously seeks input from state and local partners through updated assessments, annual regional meetings, and planning sessions. Tribal nations are all located in one paris h. They participate in emergency management planning at the parish level. Tribes are invited to participate in regional planning groups and have regional representation on the SIEC. Tribal governments are also represented in service associations such as the Chiefs of Police Association (LASCIP). Non governmental organizations (NGOs) with regional offices participate in planning and training at the parish and regional level. Representation on the SIEC is through their regional coordinator. Statewide N GOs participate in planning with GOHSEP and are represented on the SIEC through the GOHSEP director (LASCIP). The SIEC includes representatives from each of the states nine homeland security regions, state agencies, tribal authorities, and all first responder disciplines. Officials feel that the SIECs membership allows it to be representative of all state and local entities. Emergency communications leadership in Louisiana has been the product of many individuals who have worked to increase coordination and emergency preparedness. Governors Kathleen Blanco and Bobby Jindal developed and supported the governance structures which manage interoperability. Governor Jindal has made funding of LWIN a priority on the state level. Both Governors helped secure federal funding for the project. Louisiana legislators have introduced and passed legislation that substantiated the governance structure and funded LWIN.
78 Officials at GOHSEP took the initiative to seek a solution to the states communications and colla boration problems and as a result have been able to implement a successful program. GOHSEP Director Mark Cooper worked successfully with the legislature to gather support (Mitchell 2009). Finally, Brant Mitchell, SIEC Chairman and GOHSEP employee is responsible for forming a collaborative bond with neighboring states and the U.S. Coast Guard in an effort to patch compatible networks with LWIN to form a regional system (Radio Resource 2010). GOHSEP believes that they can increase local government buyin by providing frequent training and focusing on technology. They feel that by offering numerous training exercises, they will persuade local governments to implement communications plans that are consistent with state practices. Interestingly, Louisiana does not offer any training exercises that deal specifically with communications, except those offered for new LWIN users; however, communication training is integrated into all state planned exercises (GOHSEP). Louisiana plans to develop and implement mor e communications specific exercises after a statewide TICP has been developed. This should occur sometime in early 2011. GOHSEP requires localities to undergo general training when they adopt LWIN. All agencies can request training through the Office o f Interoperability. The GOHSEP Office of Interoperability also provides training for regional coordinators who are responsible for training local first responders in their jurisdiction. GOHSEP [also] provides training upon request to agencies operating on other systems who have not or cannot be integrated into LWIN to ensure seamless communication between every agency in every jurisdiction (LASCIP). GOHSEP has developed SOPs for agencies that utilize LWIN. Aside from LWIN, SOPs and MOUs are em ployed by all levels of government in Louisiana. Each parish has its own SOP and other formal agreements are used between ports, airports, railroads, and other critical
79 infrastructures. Agencies are required to update their agreements when new events occur or when technology is updated. Louisiana does not have a formal list of all the agreements in operation throughout the state (GOHSEP). Arkansas Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution gra nted home rule to all Arkansas c ounties. This 1974 amendment gave counties the right to exercise local legislative authority as long as it was not denied by state law. According to Joseph Zimmerman and the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, Arkansas ranks highly in granting their counties authority ove r finances, functions, personnel, a nd structure (Zimmerman 1991). Cities in Arkansas have not been granted home rule State law specifically restricts their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, and contracting debts, so as to prevent the abus e of such power (Blair 1988). Over the years, t he taxing, spending, and borrowing restrictions imposed by the state, along with inflation, budget cuts, and the elastic property tax have been motivation for cities and counties to seek greater freedom fr om the state. Among their most frequent requests are a fixed percentage of the state revenue, more state funds for local governments, automatic state reimbursement for unfunded state mandates, and home rule for cities (Blair 1988). These of course have been denied by state representatives. In 1976, Governor David Pryor proposed the Arkansas Plan which would have drastically altered the relationship between state and local governments. The plan would have assured local governments (both city and county) a greater level of local autonomy to raise their own revenue through the imposition of a variety of taxes. Pryor states in 1976 that, We can no longer say that we have all the answers to local problems.[T]he people know their own problems better th an we know them in Little Rock. This is why state government should become a partner, and not a parent (Kincaid 1978).
80 In exchange for passage of the Arkansas Plan, cities and counties would lose all turnbacks, which were a form of block grants given by the state government for local projects. Since these expenditures would no longer exist in the state budget, and since most local governments would now be asking local voters to raise taxes, the Arkansas Plan called for a permanent one quarter decrease in the state income tax and a ban on the expansion of the state sales tax (Kincaid 1978). Though Pryor promised voters greater authority over whether to raise taxes in their locality, the measure failed only two months after it was announced. Citizens preferred the stability of state funding over the instability of local revenue and greater local authority. This effectively ended the short lived experiment for devolution of power in local and state government in Arkansas. Arkansas has been fortunate not to have had any major catastrophic events in modern history. However, thi s has led to public safety officials who are comfortable with day to day activities but uncomfortable about possible large scale events. T he federal government does not classif y Arkansas as a high risk terrorism state though they are susceptible to tornados and other natural disasters that have caused property damage and death. Because the largest events in Arkansas are the University of Arkansas Razorback football games, which draw a crowd of between 54,000 and 72,000 fans, public safety officials do not have as many potential terrorist targets to worry about as some of the other states in the analysis. There are 1,424 local governments in Arkansas. This includes 75 counti es, 472 cities, 372 school districts, and 505 special districts (local.arkansas.gov). Native American tribes are not formally represented in Arkansas and they did not participate in SCIP planning sessions (AR SCIP). Arkansas does not have a federally recog nized UASI region or city. States who do not
81 have a UASI must designate a major metropolitan area and Little Rock, with the greatest population in the state (184,564), has been given that distinction (ARSCIP). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Arkansas will have a population of roughly 2.9 million in 2010. Arkansas population is generally homogenous at 75% white and only 16% black. Arkansas citizens are significantly poorer than the national average. The percentage of Arkansas citizens liv ing below the poverty line (17.3%) is higher than the U.S. average (13.2%). The median household income ($38,820 versus $52,029) and per capita income ($16,904 versus $21,587) is significantly lower than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau). Arkansas development of an interoperable communications network was not motivated by any part icular event. Although in a May 2004 press conference which announced the development of the Arkansas Wireless Information Network (AWIN), Governor Mike Huckabee stressed the communications issues that the state had experienced in the past during tornados in 1997 and an ice storm in 2000. At that time, emergency responders in the state were using over 200 different radio systems (Govtech). In January of 2001, Governor M ike Huckabee began to hear troubling accounts of state troopers who were unable to radio anyone outside their county. Huckabee asked the state legislature to fund a study to determine the feasibility of replacing the old state radio system. The result of this report was a plan to expand the new radio system to include emergency responders from all disciplines and across the state. By June of 2004, a steering committee had been formed and plans were underway to implement the AWIN system to enhance the com munications network owned by the state police (ARSCIP). AWIN was developed with support from then Governor Mike Huckabee who stated that the development of the network was Arkansas homeland security priority (Govtech). It was the
82 first interoperability network available statewide in any state in the nation. At that time, Michigan had also developed a statewide network but it was only available to state agencies (Upshaw 2006). Though Governor Huckabee was supportive of AWIN, many state legislators and emergency management officials were opposed to the network, citing its high cost and the infrequency with which it might be used (Schlesing 2009). Adding to the tension, local governments were told by the state to only spend their homeland security gr ant funding on the acquisition of new radios. City and county officials were furious. Local governments wanted more flexibility to use the money to fund priority projects and felt that grant money would be wasted on equipment that they would never use (Upshaw 2006). The Arkansas Department of Emergency Management ( ADEM ), which was tasked with development of AWIN, was experiencing pushback from every angle, so they decided to interview city and county leaders and ask them for advice. Eventually, state and local officials agreed on a plan called Command and Control, which gives state radios to the heads of law enforcement agencies, county governments, emergency management divisions, hospitals and other groups in all 75 counties. Some federa l employees in Arkansas, including FBI and U.S. Marshal Service workers, also have radios for use in emergencies (Upshaw 2006). Complaints about AWIN subside d once cities and counties began to use the system in emergency situations. The only remaining cr iticism is the cost of buying new equipment (ARSCIP). Furthermore, a wave of devastating tornados in 2008, floods, and an ice storm in February of 2009 augmented support for AWIN. The ice storm alone required the Arkansas National Guard to purchase 100 new radios at $5,000 a piece in order to communicate. During the ice storm AWIN towers were powered by generators in areas where power was not
83 available. As a result, the National Guard was able to talk with any police agency in the state and was even connected to local hospitals and ambulance services (Schlesing 2009). SCIP developers write that while it may not be possible or desirable to include all emergency response personnel on a single system, it is possible to improve their capacity to communicate through better governance, SOPs, and training. Arkansas hopes to achieve their goal of 100% seamless communication by 2017 (ARSCIP). The Arkansas Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) was primarily responsible for development of t he SCIP. However, ADEM knew that implementation of the SCIP would require an abundance of work and a governing body that was representative of all the different interests across the state. Arkansas chose to employ a Subject Specific Committee approach t o developing their governance structure. In 2007, ADEM sent a draft Executive Order for consideration by Governor Mike Beebe to establish the Arkansas Interoperable Communications Committee (AICC). The AICC is responsible for maintaining the statewide interoperable communications plan and ensuring that a wide variety of local public safety officials are providing recommendations to the Arkansas Interoperable Communications Executive Committee (AICEC) on the progress and development of communications in the state. The AICEC is a smaller committee which is tasked with defining the strategic plan and direction of communications in Arkansas (ARSCIP). While Arkansas began building AWIN in 2004, the AICC and AICEC were created by executive order in 2007 (ARS CIP). Arkansas officials are satisfied that the governance structure and makeup of the various governing organizations provide a representative and fair voice for pract itioners, policy makers, and other stakeholders across the state. Membership on the AICC and AICEC consists of mostly
84 state agencies and combination state and local professional groups and NGOs. There are not many direct representatives from counties or cities and those who are included serve a dual role as local representative and r epresentative of that region. ADEM controls state and local use of AWIN and DIS manages AWIN. Furthermore, ADEM coordinated the development of the SCIP, the AICC and the AICEC. After the SCIP was developed, DIS was given the title of lead agency in any future development of the statewide plan. It is safe to say that if you want to provide input regarding interoperability policy in Arkansas, you must ultimately go through ADEM and DIS. Arkansas is divided into five emergency management regions as rep resented in F igure 31. Each of Arkansas 75 counties has an Emergency Manager and the state has an Arkansas Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) coordinator in each region (AR DEM). The AWIN Work Group was created by Act 746 of 2001. Leadership for AWIN has been provided by Governor Mike Huckabee and Penny Rubow who is the AWIN Program Director. Rubow serves as the point of contact and interoperability coordinator for the state and the SCIP though she does not work on interoperability full time I n 2006, Governor Mike Huckabee remarked of AWIN: It is a huge accomplishment [for Arkansas] that will save lives but we realize that the averag e citizen will probably not be aware of what a huge issue this is, few states have gotten close to what weve do ne (Upshaw 2006). Arkansas be gan building its award winning AWIN in 2004. AWIN was developed by utilizing existing communications towers and equipment from a previous communications system. Neither state nor local agencies are required to use the networ k. Public safety agencies who choose to use AWIN can use the system for either everyday events or during emergencies,
85 thus, maintaining their current communications system. There are no u ser fees associated with joining AWIN but agencies must purchase P25 radio equipment. Many local agencies and some state agencies maintain separate systems with varying levels of interoperability with AWIN. There are several reasons for these disparities. Some agencies need special equipment to meet the demands made on them by geography and many small counties and towns are unable to afford P25 compliant systems (ARSCIP). Before AWIN, interviews conducted during SCI P development revealed that fewer than 10% of Arkansas first responder agencies had written and signed SOPs with other agencies. AWIN and ADEM currently require agencies to use standard procedures to assess their communications capabilities and to maintain an emergency operations plan. M any of these agreements have not been signed nor are they updated frequently. However, e ach organization that joins AWIN must sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU outlines who has ownership over AWIN and responsibilities for the maintenance of AWIN infrastructure. The MOU includes utility cost responsibiliti es, tower and shelter access and sharing, and insurance requirements (ARSCIP). Arkansas funds its communications efforts through federal grant funding and general funds from state and local governments. State officials have successfully fought against AWI N use r fees as a source of funding. Arkansas pays for AWIN through revenue bonds, federal homeland security grant money, money from the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and even drivers license fees (Govtech). In October of 2009, Congress app ropriated another $1.5 million to Arkansas to expand the AWIN system in North Little Rock and Arkansas State University at Beebe (Pryor, 2009).
86 To date, AWIN has cost over $200 million to implement. Since 2005, the state has committed over $66 million to the development and maintenance of AWIN (AWIN.gov). In addition, Arkansas received $ 11,169,402 in PSIC funds of which $865,054 was allocated for technology. Arkansas does not adhere to the 80/20 rule for state and local funding distribution. ADEM enter ed into a Memoranda of Understanding with local counties which allows them to spend the grant funding on behalf of local counties and in accordance with federal rules and state communications plans (NTIA.gov). The AICC Funding Subcommittee is tas ked with identification of sustainable funding streams and has worked with the governors office and state legislators on this endeavor. The AICC is also responsible for prioritizing funding projects developing a plan to identify costs, and will make key decisions in the event that AWIN ceases to be funded (ARSCIP). In the past, local officials have complained that training was not always available and that turnover of personnel who understood the AWIN system was making it difficult to retain knowledge. ADEM now provides training exercises for practitioners who are new to AWIN equipment and operations, any state or local agency that us es AWIN as their primary system and any agency which uses AWIN compatible radios. However, Arkansas does not provide tr aining specifically for interoperable communications beyond AWIN. Because Arkansas officials feel that training is necessary for all agencies that might be involved in a multi agency response situation, they have planned to incorporate training and exerci ses as a requirement for local governments who work with agencies operating on the AWIN system (ARSCIP). Rhode Island Rhode Island is only 37 miles wide and 48 miles long. The state is the smallest in the union and encompasses only 1,545 square miles. Rhode Island is one of the most densely
87 populated and industrialized states. The population of Rhode Island (1 million in total) can be described as 86% urban and 14% rural with no unincorporated land in the entire state (US Census Bureau). Rhode I slands size contributes to the relationship between the state and its local governments. The state has five counties but no county government. The 39 cities and towns of Rhode Island maintain a centralized government within each community which provides governmental services, emergency management, public works and public safety including police, fire and emergency medical services. Many of the states operations are also centralized. Rhode Island has one Department of Health and one Fire Services Depart ment, both of which have branch offices that operate at the local level without decentralized county departments. Law enforcement, emergency management agencies, and public works departments do exist at the local level and work closely with statewide offic es (RI SCIP). Rhode Island is considered a low risk state for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters though they have experienced tropical storms, winter weather emergencies, fires, and floods. Their most recent high profile emergency issue was the Station Nightclub Fire. The region surrounding the City of Providence is considered a Tier 2 UASI by the federal government which indicates some level of risk (DHS). Before 2001, local jurisdictions and public safety agencies in Rhode Island built communications systems that met the individual needs of specific disciplines. After September 11th, state and local officials began to realize that statewide interoperability was critical for the success of emergency management. After several years of planning and collaboration between state and local officials, public safety communications evolved quickly and became a priority among first responders.
88 Rhode Islands interoperability network is called the Rhode Island Statewide COmmunications Networ k (RISCON) and is a smaller version of the systems approach that California is currently working toward. The Washington County Interoperable Communications Project, the North Providence Police Department network, and the City of Providence network were all linked to create RISCON. Local governments developed each network, making the system a truly bottom up project. The Washington County Project was established by Governor Donald Carcieri in 2003 who asked the Narragansett Police Department to lead the ef fort to improve radio communications in the area. The Narragansett Police Department applied for and was awarded a $3.1 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security Preparedness and Response Directorate. This network is complete and popular among users. The North Providence network extends into the northern portion of the state and was established by the local police department in 2004. This network has successfully pursued outside funding and continues to develop. The City of Providence networ k became operational in mid2008 and includes the downtown and surrounding areas of Providence. Rhode Island also plans to eventually connect their network with the Connecticut and Massachusetts networks. RISCON was developed through a set of strategies that would utilize existing infrastructure, eliminate reliance on commercial vendors for communication transmissions and create a state owned system. Because existing networks were being patched together, the state decided to use a trunked radio system whic h makes a group of radio channels available through an electronic system controlled by a computer. When users press the push to talk button on their mobile radio, the computer searches through and selects an available channel, thus linking that locality wi th others. Several other discipline specific networks exist throughout Rhode Island
89 but because of the size of the state, the number of networks does not come close to those available throughout states such as California or New York. Governor Car cieri provided overwhelming support for the RISCON project. He requested that a representative from his office be included on the Communications Working Group. Carcieri also lobbied the General Asse mbly and was awarded three full time positions to support the RISCON system. Furthermore, local, state, tribal and federal officials have been supportive of RISCON and the work of RIEMA and the efforts of the Communications Working Group. Numerous letters of support were attached to the final SCIP report (RI SC IP). However, only a few years into the development of RISCON, public safety officials were reluctant to buyin to the system. Membership was typically limited to anyone in areas with full coverage. For some agencies, funding was the main barrier to buyin; radio equipment can cost between $4,000 and $5,000 per unit. To address this concern, the state began to use PSIC grant funding to buy radios for every front line police and fire unit, EMS service providers, as well as colleges and universities. Over 1400 units were purchased by the state (RI SCIP). RISCON currently has close to 3000 individual users. In most states, this would not be a large number; however, Rhode Island only has a few thousand fire, police, and EMS practitioners spread thro ughout the state in total. RISCON has expanded to include 97% coverage throughout the state. This coverage is reliable, though several tower sites are still under construction (RadioReference). RIEMA conducts statewide exercises to test RISCON and identi fy breaks in service (RI SCIP). The Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) has been designated as the lead agency for coordination and planning for disasters and emergencies requiring a statewide response. RIEMA was established by Rhode Island General Law 30 15. The Emergency
90 Management Advisory Council (EMAC), chartered by statute, advises the Governor on preparedness activities. EMAC created the Domestic Preparedness Subcommittee in 1999, which in turn created the Communications Working Group (CWG). The CWG works with RIEMA to address emergency communications issues by bridging diverse radio systems and facilitating cooperation between all levels of government. The Rhode Island CWG is responsible for SCIP development and general communications planning. The CWG serves as a governing body and oversees the system on a daily basis. They do not have legislative authority over interoperability in the state. The CWG is only allowed advisory authority through the Department of Public Safety ( DPS ) and EMAC. With help and advice from the CWG, the Rhode Island State Police own in part and manage RISCON. For example, each individual component of RISCON is owned by three different localities. The individual localities continue to own and maintain the system but must sign an MOU which outlines their responsibilities and limitations. The State Police also manage RISCONs daily operations, plan, budget, and staff the system. The CWGs role is to serve as an Advisory Group for RISCO N by developing MOUs and serving as the liaison for new agencies who wish to become a system user. Their goal is to establish four regional centers to oversee mutual aid in a particular region when a major event occurs. Individual agencies would not be able to coordinate mutual aid when radio, telephone, and other alarm dispatching is at its highest levels (RI SCIP). Statewide SOPs have been developed to govern the use of the RISCON system. All agencies using RISCON must sign an SOP which outlines thei r roles and responsibilities. Individual agencies are still required to maintain their own individual use policies for other communications networks or emergency management and mutual aid.
91 Training is offered to public safety agencies as they join RISC ON. RISCON officials travel to the agency that needs the training and provide instruction based on the schedules and convenience of that locale. Additionally, training for police, fire, and EMS are conducted jointly and include a team approach. One train er must be from law enforcement, fire, and EMS to encourage cross disciplinary collaboration. As RISCON has become more popular, the state has taken on a train the trainer approach where local representatives train and send those individuals back to their own jurisdictions to train first responders (RI SCIP). RISCON has been successful because the CWG has been able to provide the direction, leadership, and motivation necessary to successfully collaborate with local officials. While the governance structure can be described as a traditional hierarchy, the maintenance and development of the statewide technology (RISCON) is a local project which, unlike other states in this analysis, is not managed by a private vendor. Furthermore, the CWG has been able to include state, local, and national officials within its decision making ranks and has played a role in persuading the managers of existing communications systems to merge with one another, creating a culture or cooperation. Both state and local officials feel comfortable enough with the group to air their weaknesses and work through them as a group (RI SCIP). There are some weaknesses that the CWG and RIEMA have noticed. For instance, while EMAC has statutory authority, DPS and the CWG are authorized by other organizations. Officials have noticed that group decisions are not always taken seriously by other agencies across the state. Furthermore, RISCON has primarily been managed on the local level and most of the costs and administrative duties fall o n them. This makes other communities reluctant to buy in and makes it di fficult for the state to have centralized control over the network (RI SCIP).
92 Finally, it has been difficult to gather support for state funding. Funding that was promised for su pport services has not been awarded and RISCON management and maintenance funding has not been a priority for the state legislature (RI SCIP) As with most states, funding has been a barrier to completion of the project. To date, various federal grants and local dollars totaling approximately $14.5 million have been invested in RISCON. Rhode Island was awarded $7.4 million in PSIC grant funding which went entirely toward communications. The state has also fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal funding on to local governments. Many locals have used their federal grant funding to purchase P25 compliant radio systems and the state used federal grant funding to further develop RISCON. For additional funding, the CWG and RIEMA continue to seek out both federal and state funding sources and opportunities (RI SCIP). Texas One of the most interesting aspects of state and local relations in Texas centers on the state constitution. The most recent Texas Constitution was drafted in 1875 and was composed of 17 articles. Since then, Texas voters have approved nearly 240 constitutional amendments which have resulted in a disorganized and inconsistent document (Kraemer 2009). Information regarding counties, cities, and special districts are scattered in different places throughout the document. If someone were interested in local government in Texas and wanted to find out more specific information, they would have to look to Article XI on Municipal Corporations, Article V on the Judiciary, Article VIII on Taxation and Revenue, Article XVI on General Provisions, and Article IX on Counties (Jones et al. 1983). In fact, if you wanted information on the structure of county governments, you would need to reference Article V on the Judiciary rather than Artic le IX on Counties. In Article XI on Municipal Corporations, only three of the ten articles actually relate to municipal governments.
93 Texas has 254 counties, more than any other state. Texas counties do not have the right to establish home rule charter s (Kraemer et al. 2009). However, cities in Texas can operate under either general law or home rule. Cities with a population of under 5,000 can only be chartered under general rule provisions. Cities with greater than 5,000 people may elect to adopt a charter. While over 200 cities in Texas have adopted home rule charters, they are only granted the power to determine their governance structure (Jones et al. 1983). Texas cities are constitutionally limited in their ability to tax (Kraemer et al., 2009). The Texas Legislature must authorize new revenue sources for cities ; they have in the past allowed license fees, permits, fines, and penalties. If these sources of revenue prove insufficient for maintaining local services, cities must resort to selling b onds or borrowing (Jones et al. 1983). Over the years citizens have advocated for increased county autonomy. The most prevalent requests are to give counties the right to enact ordinances and establish a single chief executive. Senator John Montford attempted to include an amendment that would give counties the power to pass ordinances in 1993. His attempt was not successful (Kraemer et al. 2009). Texas is the second largest state in area, behind Alaska, and the second largest state in population, behind California. Along with its 254 counties, Texas has 1206 incorporated cities, 3 tribal nations, and 5,300 public safety agencies (Texas Municipal League). With the City of Houston at its center, Harris County is the most populated (3.7 million) a nd Loving County near El Paso is the least (60). Texass total population was estimated at 24.78 million in 2009 (US Census Bureau). Furthermore, Texas is becoming increasingly urban, 20 million Texans live in urban areas; 85% of the states population ( Texas Municipal League). Texas has a Hispanic population that is similar to California. At 36.9%, the Hispanic population in Texas surpasses the national average by 15%. Texas has a Caucasian population
94 that is much lower than the national average, 46.7% versus 65.1%. Texas is similar to the national average in every other category, including the percentage of people living below the poverty line, 15.8% versus 13.2% nationally (US Census Bureau). Texas leads the nation in disaster declarations. S ince 1953, Texas has declared 228 major disasters. Texas frequently experiences tornados, flash flooding, hurricanes and tropical storms, ice storms, earthquakes, and major heat waves. Some areas in Texas experience persistent drought and wildfire (NOAA). The number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 UASI Areas have increased over the past two years. Texas has two Tier 1 Urban Areas (Houston and Dallas Ft. Worth Arlington) and three Tier II Urban Areas (Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio). The Port of Houston i s the largest hub for international commerce in the United States and sixth largest in the world. Additionally, NASAs Johnson Space Center is located in Houston (TxSCIP). Large quantities of oil, gas, and other hazardous materials are produced, re fined, and stored in Texas (US Energy Information Administration). Storage of these materials frequently results in fires, explosions, and hazardous material leaks. Texas shares its border with Mexico and must frequently deal with organized crime stemming from the war on drugs Furthermore, the U.S. Mexican border presents an opportunity for terrorists to cross into the country. Since 2006, 350 suspected Al Qaeda operatives and people whose origin was terrorism related countries have attempted to cro ss the border from Mexico into the U.S. (TxSCIP). In 2005, Governor Rick Perry made radio interoperability the priority for anyone seeking homeland security grants. He also requested that local governments use a significant amount of their UASI funding f or communications improvements (Office of the Governor 2006).
95 Governor Perry appointed the TxRC as the governing body for the Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan in April of 2007. That same month, Governor Perry announced that the entir e state had reached level four interoperable communications. He praised state and local collaborative efforts to make this level of communication possible. Level four radio interoperability allows fire fighters, emergency medical responders, police offic ers, deputy sheriffs and state troopers to establish radio communications using their own equipment on designated channels (Schneiweiss 2007). At that time, organizations who were not affiliated with fire, EMS, or police were not included. Governor Rick Perry has been supportive of the TxRC and the SCIP. He attended the Strategic Planning Commission meeting in July of 2007 and addressed the group, reaffirming that radio communications were Texass first priority when it came to homeland security. At tha t time, Governor Perry set a 2015 goal for all public safety agencies to have direct and seamless communications. While emergency communications in Texas has seen no shortage of support from its executive, the legislature has not yet been willing to fully support a statewide project. During the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, Representative Warren Chisum sponsored HB 2507 which would legally establish a statewide radio interoperability network and establish an emergency radio infrastructure account. T he bill called for an average of $45 million in state funding from FY 09 until FY 2014 and it established a legal basis for continuous funding of the project. The money would be awarded as grants to the regional councils and state agencies to implement em ergency communications plans and purchase equipment. The bill was engrossed in the House but never made it out of committee in the Senate (81 R HB 2507 Engrossed Version Fiscal Note). By the time the bill was introduced in the legislature, the TxRC had a lready projected
96 that they would need over $800 million in combined federal and state funding to fully implement the SCIP (TxRC). Public safety providers in Texas had hoped for another general fund state allocation of $120 million in 2009 and 2010 for further development of the projects outlined in the SCIP. This funding was not approved by the legislature and Texas has had to rely on federal funding (81 R HB 2507 Engrossed Version Fiscal Note). The l egislature convenes in January of every odd year. The TxRC plans to reintroduc e this bill during the 2011 legislative session (TxRC). State, tribal, federal and local governments are encouraged to save money by sharing infrastructure, facilities, and radio channels. In many cases, regions and local govern ments are sharing communications vehicles and equipment in areas of the state where it is impossible to install communications infrastructure (TxSCIP). TxRC members are also working to educate and gain the support of the Texas Legislature. The primary goal is to establish a continuous funding source. The TxRC Funding Working Group is working to identify and win various federal and state grants. Texas was awarded $63 million in Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grants by the federal government. Approximately 31% of the funding went to UASI regions and $9 million (7%) went to improving interoperability on the U.S. / Mexico border. The HoustonGalveston UASI receives the most UASI funding followed by Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, El Pas o, and Austin. Texas has fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments (NTIA). The most significant local entities, for the purpose of interoperability, are regional council governments. Texas has 24 regional councils c omprised of representatives from the various government entities within that region. The councils deliver services and oversee initiatives
97 decided upon by local government representatives. They are responsible for a number of issues ranging from aging, hom eland security, environment, human services, and transportation. Most recently, these regional councils have provided assistance to local governments applying for federal communications grants. Localities have found that their chances of winning a grant a re higher when they work collaboratively (Kraemer et al. 2009). Some regional councils charter an interoperability or homeland security committee made up of local specialists. Others have staffers who focus on those two subjects, and still others use thei r regular governing board members as communications representatives to the TxRC. The services that each provide are more or less sophisticated depending on the region. For example, the HoustonGalveston Area Council serves a population of 5.7 million and provides regional planning and other services to its local governments (HoustonGalveston Area Council). The major interoperability governing body in Texas is the Texas Radio Coalition (TxRC). The TxRC is overseen by the Texas Homeland Security Office. Their primary responsibility is to oversee the development and implementation of communications capabilities throughout the state and to revise the SCIP. The TxRC serves as an advisor to the Governor, the Texas Homeland Security Director, and GDEM. Membe rship on the TxRC is voluntary, not mandated by state law, and open to any federal, state, local, tribal, and nonprofit organizations including critical infrastructure, public utilities, and transportation agencies. The TxRC is divided into three main bodies: the SIEC, a Steering Committee, and 8 subject specific Working Groups (TxRC). More than 50% of the TxRCs membership comes from local governments and many of these representatives play key leadership roles. Most of the participants in the SCIP deve lopment process have now become TxRC members.
98 Section 421.041 of the Texas Government Code makes the TxRC a permanent member of the Governors F irst Responder Advisory Council; giving the organization the legitimacy that it needs to implement the SCIP al though, the TxRC has little power to force local governments to adopt the statewide network or buy P25 compliant equipment. The TxRC also contains temporary, narrowly chartered working groups formed for specific tasks. Current working groups have been e stablished for governance, capabilities assessment, strategic planning, technology, implementation, SOPs, funding, and evaluation. Membership on these committees consists of TxRC members and representatives from state and local agencies across the state ( TxRC). The Executive Committee (SIEC) is comprised of high level officials with the power to make final decisions regarding interoperability in the state of Texas. This Committee is selected by the Governors Office and the Texas Homeland Security Direct or. The Executive Committee shall: build relationships at the local, state, Tribal and federal levels; leverage resources where appropriate; educate and update representatives from the Governor's Office and appropriate legislative committees, and the publ ic regarding the state's interoperability work; and approve any revisions to the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (TxSCIP). The Steering Committee has regular monthly meetings and is made up of representatives from across the state who hav e expertise in communications and technology and who hold leadership posit ions within their home agency. It is the responsibility of the Steering Committee to develop future goals for public safety communications, establish working groups, build support for statewide interoperability efforts, review and make recommendations for revisions to the SCIP, and provide subject m atter experts to assist in reviews of grant applications (TxRC).
99 Mike Simpson, Wireless Communication Services Manager from the City of Austin, is serving as the interim Statewide Communications Interoperability Coordinator. Texas had planned to fill the position with a permanent coordinator by October of 2009 but have not yet done so. While Governor Rick Perry has been supporti ve of interoperability efforts, TxRC Chairman, Peter Collins, Chief Information Officer for the City of Austin, has provided leadership that has g uide d implementation and has helped the state receive federal grant money. Peter Collins is the spokesman for interoperability in Texas and has briefed Congressional Committees on numerous occasions. In 2008, he briefed a House Panel on interoperability on the U.S. Mexican Border (Collins 2008). Radio capabilities vary across the entire state of Texas. Because of their experience with natural disasters some regions have a long history of communicating with one another. For example, Austin and Travis County began a joint project to establish the Regional Radio System in 2000. They were awarded a $6 million gr ant in 2005 from the Community Oriented Policing Services Office and the U.S. Department of Justice to complete the system and extend it to Williamson County (Schneiweiss 2007). Unfortunately, many localities have never communicated with neighboring c ounties or cities. Most public safety agencies operate on wideband VHF channels. VHF channel use has become insufficient because available radio channels are congested; thus, it is impossible for regional managers to expand coverage. Many metropolitan a reas operate on 800 MHz trunking systems. Some of these systems are more than 20 year old and manufacturers no longer carry parts for 800MHz radios. Houston and Dallas Ft. Worth use several different radio systems
100 that are very old. Regional managers are concerned that not everyone is trained to use all of the various types of equipment (TxSCIP). Development of a statewide network in Texas would be expensive and some might argue, impractical. Texas is a large state and much of its land area is sparsel y populated and barren. Most rural areas in Texas only have access to landlines and almost no cell phone coverage. Because of these barriers, communications capabilities vary greatly throughout the state. The states goal is to establish a minimum level of communications through gateways, IP networks, and shared channels in all 24 planning regions. This goal has generally been achieved but a great deal of work is still necessary to improve communications (TxSCIP). Though most local governments in Texas collaborate based on a regional system, the State of Texas has designated certain frequencies as mutual aid channels. This system is called the Texas Interoperability Channel Plan (Channel Plan) and is open to public safety agencies throughout the state. The channels can only be used in the event of an emergency involving imminent danger to life or property, pre planned special events, and joint training exercises. Organizations who use these mutual aid channels must participate in regional communicat ions planning, manage the use of the channels among their employees, and only use the frequency for coordination purposes and not as an everyday system. Approximately 1,560 of the 5,300 public safety agencies in Texas have signed an MOU to participate in the Channel Plan (TxSIEC). One of TxRCs highest priorities is the improvement of interoperable radio communications on the Texas border. The Texas Border Communications Project includes federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in the five Council s of Government along the Texas border with Mexico. The Project Oversight Team has planned and coordinated an integrated system from El Paso to Brownsville. Texas used its PSIC grant money to fund this project. The entire project is
101 expected to cost $150 million for upgrades, build outs, and maintenance over the next 10 years (US Federal News, 2008). In Texas, specific disciplines must conduct their own training exercises that which must include communications plans. State officials plan to implement a statewide training program for interoperable communications that require public safety organizations to incorporate interoperable communications in their training sessions. The state plans to develop an online multidis ciplinary communications course and will add interoperable communications courses to the curriculum offered by the Governors Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) at no cost to local, tribal, state agency personnel, and volunteers (TxSCIP). The TxRC SOP and Governance Working Groups developed a regional template for state and local agencies to use when addressing interoperable communications. Representatives from many disciplines and several government levels played a role in the development of the template. Regional and state agencies a re required to participate in a regional SOP or eq uivalent agreement. The template is posted on the TxRC website (TxRC) The Texas Statewide Interoperability Channel Plan established a Channel Plan MOU specifically for mutual aid communications. Public safety agencies must also sign this MOU to have access to the Channel Plan. L ocal governments are not required to partner with the state and are able to continue using their own communications systems if they choose. Additionally, Texas Senate Bill SB 11, enacted in 2007, created a statewide mutual aid agreement which essentially states that all agreements made between organizations are binding during an emergency situation but gives the state the right to respond to local government issues without a writt en aid agree ment In total, public safety agencies around the state have signed over 1,400 MOU (TxSCIP).
102 California Article XI of the California State Constitution gives the state legislature the right to create local governments, define their powers, and set their structure (Hyink and Provost 1998). This article permits counties and cities to develop their own charters while also prescribing exactly what the charters must contain. Only 12 of the 58 counties have adopted charters as a means for organizing their government structure. Charter counties are considered home rule counties and their citizens must vote to amend or approve the charter and strengthen or weaken the powers of the county government (Hyink and Provost 1998). Most cities, like most c ounties in California, operate under general law. The cost, time, and political battles associated with charter development are just too high a price for both county and city governments (Hyink and Provost 2003). Home rule was a result of the Pr ogressive Era, where politicians were successfully able to advocate for greater local autonomy and separation between state and local revenue sources (Silva and Barbour 1999). These same Progressives who fought for the 1911 Constitutional Amendments to put referendums and initiative s into motion might have never guessed the unforeseen consequences of such an action. Among voter confusion, high costs, and irresponsible legislation, referendums have changed the relationship between states and local governme nts in California. Voter referendums and initiatives were adopted by cities long before they were instituted statewide as a means to amend city charters. Currently, referendums and initiatives are utilized more frequently on the state level and in highly populated cities areas (Hyink and Provost 1998). However, the referendum that has been most detrimental to state and local relations has an interesting history. While county, city and special district spending began to double between 1967 and 1977, Howa rd Jarvis, a retired millionaire, took his fight to lower taxes to the people of
103 California with Proposition 13. Property taxes had increased substantially over the years as a result of the housing boom and inflation. Proposition 13 was meant to lower pr operty taxes but had considerable consequences for the finances of local governments. Before 1977, counties received 40% of their income from property taxes, cities 27%, and school districts more than 50% (Hyink and Provost 1998). When voters approved Proposition 13 it cut $7 billion from local property tax collections. Local governments did not immediately feel the effects of Proposition 13. At that time, the state had a large budget surplus and the legislature was able to take the burden off of loca l governments by giving $5.9 billion over the course of four years. By 1982, Californias surplus had diminished and local government expenditures were increasing due to population growth and inflation (Hyink and Provost 1998). Local governments were forc ed to find new sources of revenue while also cutting their budgets. The results were taxes and fees on everything from hotels to sewer service to recreational facilities (Silva and Barbour 1999). Since that time, local governments have become more depen dent on the state for resources. By 1995, California was supplying 75% of all school revenue to local governments (Hyink and Provost 1998). This takes a great deal of power away from cities, counties, and other special districts. Furthermore, unfunded ma ndates have in some cases resulted in county governments allocating 90% of their budget to support state programs (Hyink and Provost 1998). Some counties have had to close their libraries. Lassen County, an area the size of Connecticut, is patrolled by only 13 policemen. A lack of separation between state and local revenue sources and property tax cuts for local governments adds to the tension between the state and local governments. This tension undermines a local sense of authority and jeopardizes the delivery of services (Silva and Barbour 1999).
104 By 1999, Governor Gray Davis began phasing in reductions of the Vehicle License Fee which served as a property tax on vehicles for local governments. The state government was already seeing a serious deficit because of a reduction in income tax revenue. Many programs were under threat of being cut from the state budget including local funding and education. As a result of the Vehicle License Fee, in 2004 a coalition of counties, cities, and other interes ted groups began lobbying for Proposition 1A. This Proposition ensured that the state could only borrow local property taxes under certain conditions, including repayment within three years. In essence, any reduction in the Vehicle License Fee would requ ire reimbursement to local governments. The legislature also would be barred from reducing the amount of sales tax that local governments collect or from redistributing it among local entities (Barbour 2007). The measure passed with 85 percent of the pop ular vote. While no terrorist attacks have been carried out in California, the state has been targeted for attacks, most notably at Los Angeles International Airport. Officials believe that Californias biggest threats are from floods and landslides, ear thquakes, wildfires, drought, storms, civil disturbance, energy shortages, epidemics, and hazardous material spills (NOAA). California is also home to a number of ports, manufacturing plants, nuclear facilities, agricultural production, entertainment, sports, and tourism sites. California has 5 UASI areas, two Tier 1 cities (Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Bay Area including San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland), and three Tier 2 UASIs (Anaheim, Sacramento, and San Diego). Each of these areas has received UASI funding from the federal government (DHS). California is the most populous state in the U.S. which would lead us to believe that collaboration might be di fficult The population of California is estimated to have reached 37.7
105 million people in 2010 (US Census Bureau). Furthermore, California is home to 8 of the most populated cities in the U.S. These cities are Los Angeles (4 million), San Diego (3 million) San Jose (895,000) San Francisco (809,000), Long Beach (461,000), Fresno (428,000) S acramento (407,000), and Oakland (404,000) (US Census Bureau). California has 58 counties and 481 incorporated cities. California has 64 cities with a population of 100,000 or more and 101 cities with a population between 50,000 and 99,000 (Califo rnia League of Cities). Californias 58 counties vary drastically according to size and population. San Bernardino County is the largest in the United States with 20,164 square miles. San Francisco County has an area of only 46 square miles. Los Angeles county is populated with anywhere between 8 and 11 million people, while Alpine County has only 1,000 inhabitants (Hyink and Provost 1998). The diverse terrain and large population are two reasons why coordination between the state and local governments m ight be difficult. Though California is a high risk state for natural disasters and terrorist threats, no one moment in Californias history spurred the desire to cooperate for the sake of interoperable communications. California officials believe tha t Californias current communications capabilities are a result of diligence and foresight over time. The state has a long history of being a leader in the field of interoperable communications and emergency response, something for which officials are quit e proud. California was the first state to designate radio channels for emergency responders and in 1987 their plan for designated radio channels was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), (CalSCIP). California has been developing communi cation policies to aid in emergency response since the mid 1960s beginning with CLEMARS (California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement) and then in 1970 when fire services formed an Incident Command System (ICS) to communicate
106 during wild fires. Also in 1970, the California Emergency Services Act established the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to coordinate the response to major disasters. OEC assists local governments with their emergency preparedness response and recovery efforts and helps lo cal governments obtain federal grant money (CalSCIP). Senate Bill 1841 was signed into law in 1991 by Governor Pete Wilson as a result of the East Bay Hills Fire. This law directed the OEC to establish the Standardized Emergency Management System (SE MS). SEMS creates a multi agency plan for emergency responders to respond to multiple disasters occurring anywhere in the state. SEMs became the blueprint for the federal governments National Incident Management System (NIMS). NIMS was developed after September 11th as a means to facilitate greater local, state, and federal emergency management coordination. All states are now required to adopt NIMS standards (CalSCIP). Governors and politicians have been generally supportive of state efforts to i mprove emergency management. By mid 2002, Governor Gray Davis had signed legislation (AB 2018) requiring the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee to evaluate public safety wireless communications and recommend the purchase of equipment that meets Project 25 standards. This legislation became known as the Public Safety Communications Act of 2002 which tasked state and local officials with the development of a statewide public safety communications system and charged the Public Safety Radio Planning Committee with facilitating agreements for state agencies to share communications equipment (TIA 2010). What is curious about the passage of the Public Safety Communications Act is Governor Daviss reaction to the recommendations of the committee o ne year later. State Senator Bruce McPherson, who chaired the Senate Committee on Anti Terrorism Policy, sponsored a bill that would have required all state radio purchases to meet Project 25 standards for interoperability.
107 Davis vetoed the bill, explaini ng that radios that met federal standards would cost approximately 20 to 30% more than the radios that were currently being used (Thompson 2003). Perhaps his reaction is not surprising considering that Gray Davis was plagued by issues that ran deeper than funding for interoperability, in particular, a mismanaged state budget and a voter recall looming. Governor Schwarzenegger was slightly more supportive, though the plan to purchase Project 25 radios still has not been allocated funding on the state level. After a failed attempt to raise taxes in 2009, which was shot down by voter referendum, Governor Schwarzenegger asserted that he would never again attempt to raise taxes (Lin 2009). However, public safety has been one of his main priorities since taking office in 2003. During his 2009 attempt to raise taxes, which was shot down by voter referendum, Schwarzenegger proposed a $48 a year on average fee from property owners which would have raised an estimated $76 million for emergency services (Lin 2009). Since taking office, Schwarzenegger helped pass Proposition 1B which allowed the state to sell $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to enhance the safety and security of the transportation system, including ports. This provided over $100 million in funds to improve security in the port system which may or may not have included updating radios and communications standards (Office of the Governor 2010a). Though Schwarzenegger was not able to secure funding for emergency communicati ons specifically, he remained supportive of emergency initiatives until the end of his governorship. He supported statewide emergency management simulation exercises throughout the state (Office of the Governor 2010a) and also launched the first of its ki nd Disaster Corps which trains citizens to respond to an emergency (Office of the Governor 2010b).
108 Interoperability efforts in the state of California are governed by three organizations: the Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES), the C alifornia Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (CalSIEC), and the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee (PSRSPC). California chose to employ a mixed Regional and Subject Specific approach when developing their governance structure. The Office of Emergency Services is the primary agency charged with coordination and implementation. Government Code .1. makes it the responsibility of the OES to prepare for the next disaster by working with the public and private sector. They are statutorily required to coordinate communications efforts among local, regional, state, tribal, and federal public safety organizations. OES obtains guidance and recommendations from CalSIEC and PSRSPC. CalSIEC works primarily with local governments and PS RSPC works with state agencies to improve their communications capabilities (CalSCIP). The PSRSPC was chartered by the California Legislature following September 11th. The duties of the PSRSPC are to improve the radio systems of state agencies and to in crease interoperability between state agencies and the state and federal government. The establishment of the PSRSPC is codified in California Government Code 85928592.7. PSRSPC membership consists of state level emergency management officials including the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the National Guard, and the Department of Justice. The California SIEC is composed of state, local, and tribal officials. Its membership includes the California Department of Trans portation, the Association of Police Chiefs, Emergency Medical Service Administrators Association, the League of California Cities, and the State Association of Counties, just to name a few. CalSIEC is divided into subject specific committees and members of the committees are selected according to their professional
109 expertise. CalSIEC is also responsible for obtaining information from Californias CalSIEC local planning areas which are based on geographic areas affected by radio signal coverage and/or are as that have traditionally assisted each other through mutual aid agreements (CalSCIP). CalSIEC is not chartered by the legislature; rather, it was developed by the OEC to supervise radio frequency bands and work with local governments. The PSRSPC wa s chartered directly by the legislature to oversee communications capabilities for state agencies. Direct charters are an excellent option for states because this gives organizations authority to implement projects; many states have chosen not to codify t heir communications committees (NGA 2010). In California, the organization that works with state agencies is bolstered by legislation and the organization that works with local entities is only chartered by another agency. In an effort to enc ourage state and local compliance with the CalSCIP, state officials have recommended that the PSRSPC and CalSIEC lobby legislators in an effort to revise Government Code Public safety organizations in California are not currently required by law to adopt the recommendations listed in the CalSCIP. Any changes to the code would make this mandatory. California c ites 2017 as their goal for complete interoperability across all jurisdictions and all disciplines (CalSCIP). Regions that currently do not have any form of interoperable communications are serviced through the State Gateway Project. Gateways can connect disparate radio systems with one another regardless of radio frequency. PSRSPC and CalSIEC jointly began the purchase and deployment of mobi le gateway units in 2006. Government Code .7 supports the implementation of the State Gateway Project. The gateways are available to public safety agencies upon request and during an emergency.
110 The State Gateway Project is a short term fix for a statewide problem. Officials knew that they would have to develop an all encompassing system at some point in the future. The State of California is in the process of developing a System of Systems (SoS) network which will connect the various local, regi onal, and discipline specific communications networks throughout the state. California is unable to establish an actual statewide system because radio frequencies cannot travel over the dense terrain in some parts of the state. The master plan to establi sh a statewide SoS focuses on connecting existing systems with bridging technology and ensuring that any new equipment purchased throughout the state meets federal P25 standards. All first responder agencies in California local, state and federal are statutorily required to purchase P25 compliant equipment (Government Code ) when they are awarded state or federal funding. SoS participants buying new radio equipment can choose their own products and their own supplier (CalSCIP). California officials purposefully developed a plan that encompasses the vast number of systems throughout the state rather than dismantling them and replacing them with a state system. They believe that the key to increasing local buyin is to respect current systems (Cal SCIP) The current communications systems were developed in response to the needs of certain regions or service areas. This patchwork of networks has developed into several very sophisticated systems which have established mutual aid agreements and guidel ines governing their use. Officials believe that Californias first responder agencies can easily integrate these systems because of an already established history of mutual aid and local buy in. Unfortunately, many of these systems were not built to con nect to other systems (CalSCIP). The state chose the SoS approach in part because the lack of funding and shortage of staff make a statewide system impossible. They plan to incrementally move toward a statewide
111 system by first helping local governments upgrade their current independent systems. They will then link these systems to form the SoS and transition over time to a common system (CalSCIP). California believes that full implementation of the SoS will take up to ten years. Once local connections a re complete, counties and cities will be connected to a regional system. Finally, regional systems will connect to the state. The state will connect to regional systems through technology hubs. Local agencies can control their level of participation in the regional hub without losing autonomy. After statewide implementation is complete, California would like to begin expanding the SoS hubs to other states (CalSCIP). Unfortunately, Californias financial challenges have been a barrier to achieving interoperable communications. OES, the PSRSPC, and CalSIEC have all made and continue to make efforts to lobby state and federal legislators and apply for federal grant money. Each of these agencies are available to help local and state agencies apply for fed eral funding. Presently, any agencies seeking PSIC grant money must only purchase equipment that is P25 and CalSCIP compliant. This requiremen t helps prepare agencies for eventual adoption of the SoS (CalSCIP). The modernization, maintenance, a nd training operations necessary to sustain the SoS will require a dedicated funding source. Several local and regional governments have begun to designate their own funding sources from their annual budgets to manage their technology. California has ful filled their obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments (NTIA). Interestingly, a 2009 report from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that Californias state and local public safety agencies had mismanaged funding and even n eglected to report all spending. The Center found that federal communications money had been used to buy televisions, cars, even a shotgun safe and ammunition, none of which are permitted according to
112 federal rules. In several cases, expensive equipment was bought and never used. As a result of the report, the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) has stepped up oversight on grants reporting (Schultz 2009).1Specific training opportunities for emergency communication are not frequentl y offered in California. The OHS Training and Exercise Division (OHSTED) manages the states general first responder training and exercise program though, not all OHS training exercises focus specifically on interoperability but many include sections whi ch do deal with communications training (CA OHS) Numerous other state and local agencies sponsor simulations that test first responders ability to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. None of these training exercises focus sp ecifically on inter operable communications, but communications plays a role in any response situation and is peripherally tested (CalSCIP). The California SCIP states that the key to unlocking the potential of communications interoperability equipment a nd investments is to establish protocols for how they will be consistently and effectively used. California has a long history of creating and utilizing SOPs which is extremely helpful considering that the state is attempting to develop a system where st ate, regional, and local systems must integrate. The Emergency Services Act, and Governors Executive Order W 991, the California Emergency Plan, CALCORD, and FIREMARS are examples of the various mutual aid and standard operating plans utilized in California. Each of these documents set standards governing the use of communications frequency bands during a particular emergency. The expansion of the 1 The Centers report found that the vast majority of grant recipients did not mismanage funding. Louisiana, West Virginia, Michigan, and Color ado were also cited for mismanagement of funds. Alaska is under considerable scrutiny. They have been awarded more grant funding per person than any other state.
113 SoS project will require increased use of SOPs among participating agencies. To this end, CalSIEC has assembled an SOP committee to manage use of the SoS. The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (Government Code ) which governs the cities, counties, operational areas, mutual aid regions, and state, has been in operation since 1950. This law requires all state public safety organizations to enter into mutual aid agreements to provide assistance to one another during an emergency. The agreement allows the local jurisdiction the ability to control their reso urces but requires those not affected by the disaster to volunteer their services to the disadvantaged area. Illinois Illinoisans love for freedom and autonomy has carried over into the states relationship with local governments (Gove and Nowlan 1996) Illinois has 102 counties and over 1600 incorporated cities and towns. In total, the state of Illinois has over 6,700 local governments, more than any other state in the U.S (Illinois Municipal League). There are so many local governments in Illinois that, for example, the residents of Urbana control over 10 different local entities including the city, the township, the county, the school board, the park district, and the forest preserve district. The six county Chicago metropolitan area houses 1,200 local governments who have the power to tax, plan transportation, and influence land use (Gove and Nowlan 1996). The large number of local governments has made it necessary for the state to focus its attention on providing assistance to local governments Illinois governors have established state agencies, such as the Department of Local Government Affairs in 1969 and the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs in 1977, to accommodate local government needs and improve local management (Gove and Nowl an, 1996).
114 Although many of these local governments operate under strict statutes, the state has minimal control over the massive number of local entities which leads some to argue that the sheer number of local governments provides a shield for weak per formance, uncoordinated regional planning, and a lack of accountability to citizens. In light of this criticism it is interesting to know that Illinoisans have consistently defended the government structure in the state by failing to support efforts to el iminate or merge government units. Their fondness of the current structure, Gove and Nowlan (1996) argue, is a reflection of their support for local power and autonomy. Today, two thirds of the states population is governed by home rule. In most st ates, home rule gives local governments the power to determine their own government structure, though they are still bound by the state with regards to most other operations. Illinois local governments use home rule to deal with debt, regulate operations inside their jurisdiction, construct intergovernmental agreements, and levy new taxes (Gove and Nowlan 1996). One group of researchers found that even the Illinois Supreme Court has proven to be pro home rule. They concluded that the majority of court decisions since 1972 are favorable to home rule (Banovetz and Kelty 1986). The City of Chicago uses home rule extensively and wields substantial political power in state government. In fact, representatives from Chicago developed the 1970 Constitution, w hich increased local autonomy. Chicago shares a close working relationship with Cook County where Chicago resides. Communication is generally seamless and there are numerous mutual aid agreements between the two entities (Gove and Nowlan 1996). All governments, except those with home rule must closely follow state statutes. However, the state rarely ever enforces these laws, provides any oversight, nor do they have any
115 authority to act. For example, the state requires local governments to send an audi t to the State Comptroller but that office has no authority to require a local government to change their financial practices (Gove and Nowlan 1996). The 1970 Illinois Constitution also added an amendment that encourages intergovernmental agreements. Th e Northwest Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) has undergone the most extensive attempt to collaborate across local lines. The NIPC represents the most populated areas in Illinois. Over the years they have attempted to coordinate water, storm water, sewag e systems, rail, highway transportation, and many other projects which have been met with limited success. The NIPCs attempts at collaboration are typically met with turf battles over power and resources (Gove and Nowlan 1996). One local official rema rked that there is a serious lack of trust between municipalities and counties, local governments and the state, and the city and suburbs (Gove and Nowlan 1996). In Illinois, like most states, the need for collaboration between state and local and l ocal and local governments is increasing. The citizens of Illinois have begun to vacate the cities and move to the suburbs which are constantly increasing in size. This does not always leave cities with enough financial assistance to alleviate their soci al problems, making collaboration critical for maintaining daily operations. Illinois is considered a high risk state for terrorist attacks, with an estimated population of over 12.9 million (US Census Bureau). Illinois central location makes i t a popular hub for rail, auto, and truck traffic moving toward and through the Midwest. Illinois has over 500 DHS registered critical infrastructure sites including buildings, bridges, and pipelines. Furthermore, Illinois, especially Chicago, serves as a tourist destination boasting multiple large events a year
116 ranging from sporting to cultural events. Illinois officials wrote the original SCIP in preparation for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games (ILSCIP). Illinois is home to one Tier 1 UASI area which includes the city of Chicago, Cook, DuPage, and Lake County. Madison and St. Clair counties participate in St. Louis, Missouri UASI tactical exercises. Like the diverse number of counties and cities in operation in Illinois, the states interoperability networks are numerous and vary by user and utility. Though diverse, these systems have proven to be effective and Illinois officials claim that while the systems are independent, they are also interrelated (ILSCIP). Illinois is home to an exhaustive number of networks that service every organization from emergency management, police, fire, and health care officials. There are truly too many networks to name them all. STARCOM 21 is the s tatewide communications network that officials in Illinois have been developing to link all first responder disciplines. STARCOM is a P25 compliant 700/800 MHz trunked radio system. The system starts with ISPERN (the State Police communications system) at its base and has recently begun to connect other systems across the state, creating a system of systems model similar to California. STARCOM currently covers 98% of Illinois and has a failure rate of less than 5% (STARCOM21). Additionally, STARCOM 21 has a Wikipedia page and a Facebook group with 85 fans. The Illinois State Police began developing and implementing the STARCOM 21 system in 2000 under Governor George Ryan. Initial funding for the project, $25 million, came from the Illinois Fund for Infrastructure, Roads, Schools, and Transit (FIRST) (Office of the Governor 2000). From 2000 until 2003, Ryan was funding the maintenance of STARCOM on an annual
117 basis (IGNN 2007a). Unfortunately, by that time, Governor Ryan was mired in scandal and chose not to run for reelection. STARCOM 21 is owned, managed, and maintained by Motorola and use of the system is leased to the state at a cost to state and local agencies of $53 per radio per month (Motorola.com/starcom). Each radio costs between $4,000 and $5,000 to purchase. The state is considering an i ncrease in monthly user fees; this would raise the price to $76 per radio per month. There is some controversy surrounding the use of Motorola as the system provider. Motorola is headquartered in Illinois and has a fair amount of political power. The in crease in per month fees would go towards Motorolas $207,864,678 contract over the next 10 years (IL Sole Source Justification 2010). The new contract with Motorola has been criticized because it was acquired without a competitive bid from other manufacturers and the current contract only allows STARCOM 21 users to purchase Motorola equipment (Jones 2009). Governor Rod Blagojevich was generally supportive of efforts to strengthen STARCOM a nd interoperability in Illinois, though his most definitive effor ts were focused on securing college campuses. In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, Blagojevich initiated the Illinois Campus Security Task Force, made up of officials from the Illinois Terrorism Task Force (ITTF) and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), who advised the Governor to focus on emergency communications. By April of 2007, the ITTF had allocated $300,000 in grants to colleges and universities to purchase P25 complaint STARCOM radios. The initial grant provided enough to purchase 171 radios and Motorola donated an additional 132 radios. Officials from each college were provided with training and were given several STARCOM radios for free from the state (IGNN 2007b).
118 The Illinois Statewide Interoperability Executive Committe e (SIEC) who manages the development and implementation of the SCIP, was established in July of 2006 as a result of an amendment made to the State Police Radio Act (20 ILCS 2615). The SIEC i s overseen by the Governor. Membership on the SIEC consists of representatives from the various voice and data communications systems operating in Illinois. The Chicago/ Cook County UASI and St. Louis Urban Area groups are also voting members. All members are responsible for keeping agencies operating in their regio n abreast of the communications issues faced by the committee and the state (ILSCIP) The SIEC has established subject specific committees: governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises, and usage (ILSCIP) The State Police Radio Act of 2006 established the SIEC as an advisory board to the governor and the SCIP governing and implementation body. The SIEC has established a set of bylaws instead of a charter. The bylaw designation limits the power of the SIEC because t hey derive their authority from the Police Radio Act and the legislature. A charter would allow them to set their own rules and organize based on their own prerogative (ILSCIP). The choice of bylaw versus charter may or may not adversely affect the autho rity of the SIEC. On one hand, the Police Radio Act must be changed by the legislature in order to make any substantive changes to the SIEC. On the other, the SIEC is backed by state law, albeit indirectly, and can use this designation as a means for enf orcing its authority. At this time the SIEC only requires agencies to align their communications plans with the SCIP. They do not force any agency to adopt a network nor do they require them to purchase new equipment. Illinois chose to employ a mixed Leveraged and Traditional approach when developing their governance structure. The state utilizes the resources of state agencies and members of the SIEC working group generally originate from state agencies. The governor oversees the SIEC
119 but officials from the State Police, IEMA, STARCOM 21, the ITTF, and even the State Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) all serve on this committee. Similarly, members of the ITTF are also members of the SIEC and STARCOM 21. Membership on the ITTF is more inclusive than the SIEC and consist s of over 70 members from various organizations including state, county, city, federal, and non governmental organizations. Organizations who wish to become members of the ITTF must contact the Chair of the ITTF in writing. The C hair will then seek approval from the governor. Unfortunately, agencies who serve less than 100,000 people are not eligible to apply (ITTF). It is the ITTF s responsibility to develop a statewide funding strategy, identify grant opportunities, help l ocalities with applications, receive funds, and evaluate and oversee the use of grant money. This organization must also calculate current and future costs of development and maintenance for communications networks in Illinois. The cost of fully implement ing the SCIP is estimated at $200 million (ITTF) Since 2000, the ITTF and other state and local agencies have successfully pursued millions in federal funding. State funding has been more difficult to obtain. Illinois has contributed $25 million through the Illinois FIRST project to purchase new radio equipment. The state appropriates money from its general fund annually making the total state contribution over $27 million most of which was awarded during Governor Ryans tenure This funding is in jeopardy. Governor Pat Quinn has cut the general fund by $3 billion since taking office in 2009 (Illinois State Government ). While recognizing that state funding is limited, the SIEC continues to seek state appropriations by lobbying the governor and legislators. They have been met with resistance; interoperability is seen as a lower priority than health care, education, and social services. The
120 SIEC has even proposed a small user fee for telephone subscriber services to expand interoperability networks (ILSCIP) Fortunately, Illinois has fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments (NTIA). The ITTFs long term strategy is to stay abreast of the latest and most cost effective and ef ficient technology which could be adopted as a means for cutting costs. Some state and local agencies are sharing costs for personnel, maintenance, and operations and they have also been known to share equipment and other resources in an effort to cut costs (Illinois.gov/ittf) The IEMA manages general preparedness exercises, training sessions, seminars, workshops, tabletop exercises and drills in Illinois. These training opportunities are utilized by a wide variety of participants including first responders, volunteers, elected officials and private companies. Communications interoperability is one of many basic components of these training sessions. Courses are offered at no cost to public safety officials at all lev els of government and classes are held at various location s throughout the state (ILSCIP) Furthermore, t he IEMA has partnered with the SIEC and the ISP to develop STARCOM 21 training sessions for officials from any discipline. These courses are offered annually (ILSCIP). At present, numerous discipline specific SOPs exi st to coordinate communications procedures. Most municipal, county, and state law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical, and emergency management agencies have established SOPs governing the use of their specific communications networks. STARCOM 21 users must sign an SOP which is administered by the STARCOM 21 Oversight Committee. All SOPs completed with the purpose of establishing interopera ble communications in Illinois are subject to final approval from the SIEC who maintains an SOP database. All SOPs
121 undergo an annual formal review. The statewide interoperability coordinator must also check the SOPs to be sure that t hey are compliant with the SCIP (ILSCIP). Washington In Washington State, cities and counties have several opportunities to acquire home rule charters. Cities with more than 10,000 residents can adopt home rule charters which gives them autonomy to structure their governments and manage local business. However, state courts in Washington have given the state the ability to nullify or modify parts of home rule charters (Swanson et al. 1985; Clayton et al. 2004). Another option for cities and counties is the Optional Municipal Code which was established in 1969. Any municipality may drop their current cla ss ification and become a code locality This gives the city or county council the opportunity to exercise all powers given to it by the Washington Constitution and which are not specifically denied by law (Swanson et al. 1985). This option has been adopt ed by the majority of municipalities in Washington (Clayton et al. 2004) Unlike other states where home rule is merely symbolic, the State of Washington has continued to increase the level of responsibility given to counties. Counties have been allow ed to establish home rule charters since 1948. Six of the 39 counties have taken advantage of home rule and have broken away from the state mandated threeperson governing board (Swanson et al. 1985; MRSCW 2010). Though only a few counties have decided t o adopt home rule charters, the state has been encouraging counties to embrace growth through construction and infrastructure projects (Clayton et al. 2004). The state has also granted counties greater discretion to oversee their operations, governance st ructure, and funding (Doherty 2010).
122 Washington States population is 6,664,195, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The State of Washington consists of 39 counties and 205 cities (National League of Cities). Over 50% of Washington States population l ives in one of its 281 municipalities. Whether large or small, cities in Washington are growing rapidly. Washingtons Caucasian population is greater than the national average; 74.6% versus 65.1%. Its African American population is much lower than the n ational average 3.9% versus 12.9%. Of all the state s in this analysis, only Rhode Island and Washington have fewer citizens below the poverty line than the national average, only 11.3% of Washingtonians. The states median household and per capita income are above the national average (US Census Bureau). Washington began the SCIP development process while the state was planning for the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Officials saw this as a possible terrorist target, making interoperable communicat ions a priority (WASCIP) Officials in Washington have developed a long list of possible risks. Topping the list are the states ports. There are 76 port districts in the state and the largest fleet of ferries in the nation (WASCIP). Washington is the nations leadi ng producer of hydroelectricity. Seventy three percent of the states electricity comes from this source. Washington s high risk critical infrastructure includes hydroelectric power plants, chemical and hazardous materials manufacturers, industrial defense bases, and defense contractors. Defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin manufacture aircraft and aircraft parts in Washington. The state houses major Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard facilities which are meant to support mi litary operations over seas. Finally, Washington State is home to numerous federal facilities including the FEMA Region X Headquarters, the Federal
123 Reserve Regional Headquarters, federal courthouses, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) facilities (WA SCIP) Washington State experiences more than 1,000 earthquakes each year. Most are t oo small to notice but some cause damage and injuries (NOAA). The most recent earthquake was a magnitude 6.8 in February of 2001 which killed one person and injured 700. R ivers in Washington flood every two to five years, causing injuries and structural damage. The Pacific Coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and large lakes are all at risk from tsunamis generated by earthquakes, landslides, and underwater volca nic eruptions. Finally, Washington has five active volcanoes. Mt. St. Helens has been erupting since 2004. Its violent eruption in 1980 was its most destructive. Mount Baker, Mount Rainer, Glacier Peak, and Mount Adams are all high risk volcanoes due t o their proximity to large populations (US Geological Survey). Washington State has tw o Tier 2 UASI Areas. These include the City of Seattle and Clark and Multnomah Counties which are part of the Portland / Vancouver UASI. Washington State is also divided into nine Regional Homeland Security Coordination Districts. Each region is made up of several counties, cities, towns, or tribal nations. Little information could be found regarding former Governor Gary Lockes involvement with communications systems in Washington, though he did sign the SIEC into law in 2003. Interestingly, Governor Locke is now the Secretary of Commerce and one of his latest projects has been to award $380.7 million in grant funding to local governments who are building wir eless broadband networks for public safety (Jackson 2010). Neither Seattle, nor any jurisdiction in the State of Washington received funding. Current Governor Christine Gregoire has also been relatively uninvolved with public safety communications in Washington. She has been supportive of interoperability efforts and
124 has sent out invitations to state and local agencies to participate in public safety communications summits though she does not attend In the invitations, she stresses the importance o f collaboration and enhanced technology (Summit Invitation 2007). At the SIECs suggestion, Governor Gregoire included a proposal in the 2007 Budget to take $10 million from the states 911 Fund to build the communications network outlined in the S CIP. Unfortunately, money had already been taken from that account to pay for other projects in recent years and state legislators and local government officials worked together to remove that item from the budget (Lincoln County Commissioners 2007). Perhaps the most politically significant battles for interoperability have occurred on the local level. SIEC focus group and interview transcripts wit h local representatives reveal that regulations, turf battles, and a lack of trust make it difficult for locals to trust the state. In fact, the lack of consensus between states and local governments make it difficult to implement a statewide response and governance plan. The SIEC also found that first responders were uncomfortable sharing resources with other agencies. Inconsistent radio codes and a lack of common nomenclature among first responder personnel make the act of sharing equipment very difficult. A lack of standard procedures and mutual aid agreements make some first responders uncomfortable using another agencys channels. On one hand, agencies were open to the creation of technical and operational standards, but they were worried that these standards would lead to unfunded mandates. Local officials were particularly afraid that the state would require them to buy P25 compliant radios. Local agencies argued that they barely had enough funding to provide for their own personnel and operations. They also worried about inconsistent grant funding which does not provide a dependable funding
125 source. Furthermore, agencies located near the Canadian border had concerns that they would have to comply with both the state and Canadas standards (SIEC). The Washington State Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) was established by House Bill 1271 in April of 2003 as a subcommittee of the state Information Services Board (ISB). In 2007, the SIEC was directed by the ISB to develop and oversee t he implementation of the SCIP. Meetings are advertised to public safety officials and the general publ ic and all interested parties are encouraged to attend (ISB). In many respects the Washington Legislature was ahead of its time. The ISB was created by the legislature in 1987. The duties of the ISB are to plan for, acquire, and develop policy and s tandards for governing information technology throughout the state. The l egislature believed that if the state were to invest in communications technology that they would need to create an organization that could collaborate with local governments and man age the radio spectrum. Their overall goal was to save money and they felt that the most efficient way to reach this goal was to pool resources and collaborate (Revised Code of Washington 43.105.041) The SIEC is responsible for managing the use of wireless communications throughout the state and coordinating local response to major events. Because of its membership, the SIEC is also responsible for fostering collaboration and cooperation between stat e, local, and federal agencies. The SIEC can develop policies and make recommendations to the ISB regarding emergency communications systems but they are not permitted to change the SCIP without approval from the ISB. The SIEC also manages the licensing and use of state radio frequencies, coordinate s the purchase of state radio equipment, seek s grant funding for communications projects, and promote s state and federal standards (SIEC)
126 The Washington SIEC was developed through legislative action but serves only as a subcommittee of the Informati on Services Board. The ISB is in a position to assert greater levels of authority, but this organization has not been granted statutory power to force local governments to adopt their plan or even purchase P25 complaint equipment (WASCIP). Local governments have the power to determine the type of communications equipment in their jurisdictions. Washington officials stress that the SIEC and the interoperable governance structure was not meant to infringe on the rights of local governments to develop their own governance mechanisms and determine which interoperable solutions are right for them. In fact, of the seven guiding management principals listed in the SIEC charter, five incorporate sharing of services and open standards and fair pra ctices for loca l governments ( SI EC Charter) The SIEC established a Staff Advisory Work (SAW) group which is responsible for identifying legislative issues that might delay plans for state wide interoperability SAW members are SIEC staffers who do not represent local governments Temporary subcommittees or work groups are established as an arm of the SAW group when necessary. These subcommittees consist of SIEC members. Pas t groups include funding and technology subcommittees (SIEC). The SIEC has gi ven the Washington State Police (WSP) the lead on planning, implementing, and centralizing statewide communications projects and radio networks because of their experience ma naging IT based projects. WSP must work closely with SIEC subcommittees and working groups to address system management issues and ensure that all public responder disciplines and regions are represented in the decision making process (SIEC). Washington State is divided into nine Regional Homeland Security Coordination Distric ts. The SIEC adopted the regional approach to more effectively distribute federal funding, conduct
127 training exercises, create regional mutual aid agreements, develop a volunteer base, and to develop emergency response plans. The regional structure has al lowed local governments to share and coordinate resources and facilitate collaboration (WASCIP) Each region contains a multidisciplinary committee and a regional coordinator who set s regional priorities (WASCIP) Washingtons most substantial form of le adership for public safety communications comes from the SIEC. SIEC members represent local and multidisciplinary public safety organizations. SIEC members are appointed by the ISB and must include the National Guard, the State Police, Department of Trans portation, city and county governments, state and local fire chiefs, police chiefs, and sheriffs, and state and local emergency management directors. H owever, specific local governments are not well represented and many SIEC members also serve as represen tative s for a larger organization. For example, the City of Yakima Assistant Fire Chief is not repres enting the City of Yakima alone; he serves primarily as the representative of the Washington Association of Cities (WASCIP). In Washington, c ommunicatio ns systems take many different forms including: low band, VHF, UHF, 800 MHz trunked, analog, and digital. Varying technology and t he states diverse geography, makes it difficult to support a statewide system or even patch existing systems Local gover nme nts have developed creative ways to communicate. Some local agencies use cell phones as their primary communicati ons method (SIEC ). Unfortunately, patching channels, sharing radios, and the sheer number of other methods used to connect local government s has made interoperabil ity across the state complicated and expensive to maintain. Local officials have complained t hat these channels are unreliable and receive poor coverage. In many cases, agencies do not understand or are reluctant to use thes e servi ces (SIEC ).
128 In 2004, the SIEC developed a comprehensive plan to design and implement a statewide interoperability system that would be available to all first responder agencies. The statewide system was developed using the multiple subsystems approac h, much like Californias System of Systems. The Washington network would include several key elements such as gateways or Radio over Inter net Protocol (RoIP) which allow s nonstate agencies t o connect to the state system. RoIP systems use the internet as a vehicle for carrying voice (VoIP) and data information. The system would also have the ability to interface with federal networks (SIEC) Washington chose the digital system because it can support all radio frequencies and bandwidths, meaning that it can incorporate the various local communications systems. This system would also improve communications in the short term while local organizations seek funding to transition to the new standards based equipment. If all local governments were to adopt P25 equipment then the state could guarantee full interoperability (SIEC and WASCIP) In order to achieve their goals and successfully implement the entire multiple subsystems plan, the state must construct radio frequency sites, radio dispatch centers, and radio network control centers. They must also seek funding to buy new equipment. Sadly, Washington has been unable to secure funding to complete their entire plan and local governments are not transitioning to the new equipment as quickly as the SIEC had hoped. Much of the statewide plan that was developed in 2005 has been put on hold (SIEC). Although Washington has no statewide sys tem, shared infrastructure between state agencies and local governments is common. An example of a successfully shared system is the Washington Emergency Management Divisions (EMD) Comprehensive Emergency Management Network (CEMNET). This system links the state Emergency Operations Center to local centers throughout the state.
129 The Washington State Legislature all ocated $3 million for interoperability specific projects from 2007 until 2009 (WASCIP) This amount is far less than many of the other states included in this analysis; Illinois contributed $27 million, Louisiana over $45 million, Arkansas $66 million, an d New York almost $500 million (but far more than others, i.e. California and Texas). A lack of state funding has caused s tate and local officials to continually seek out federal grant funding. Individual local and state organizations are encouraged to se ek out funding opportunities on their own (WASCIP) The $19.1 million that Washington rece ived in PSIC grant funds went toward a radio over RoIP system that allows local agencies to connect their radios with the state system, acquisition of Project 2 5 radio equipment, and a statewide data communications system Washington has fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments (NTIA). Most agencies provide inhouse training for their specific communicati ons system Because agencies throughout Washington utilize a wide array of different communications technologies, agency level training is the most effective method. However, first responder agencies in Washington are not required to provide training exe rcises, except for their specific discipline s (WASCIP). Washington Homeland Security Regions are required to develop SOPs for local governments in their jurisdiction. These SOPs must align with their local communications interoperability plans. Ind ividual networks, at both the state and local level have also developed SOPs to meet their needs. Washington does not currently require a statewide SOP to govern its proposed radio over internet protocol system (WASCIP). New York New Yorkers might s ay that the relationship between New York State and its local governments can be summed into one statement, theres New York City and then theres
130 everything else. S tate and local relations in New York, over the course of several centuries, have resulte d in this statement being true. Though New York City might dominate state politics, the state government has done its fair share of limiting local power in return. Many local governments in New York State have been in existence longer than the state. During the colonial period, citizens saw local government as a means for distributing services. Thus, when new services were needed or citizens did not want to provide certain services, a new local government was formed. At that time, citizens saw cities as the local government. State officials eventually established counties to serve as local administrative arms of the state. In 1923, voters approved an amendment that restricted the state governments ability to impose special laws on cities. The fo llowing year cities were granted the power to adopt charters without seeking approval from the state. In 1959, New York voters approved a constitutional amendment giving all counties the right to adopt a charter without special authorization. Voter approval of the Constitutional Amendment assured that New York State would adhere to home rule, at least symbolically. Though local governments have home rule status, Article IX of the New York Constitution does not protect them from state mandates. New York State influences most local government operations such as local jails, courts, sewer and water systems, parks, building ins pections, and zoning laws (Ward 2006) Furthermore, the court systems have traditionally upheld the states decisions and ruled that state doctrine preempts home rule (Pecorella 2006). New York State has an intricate web of costly and complicated local governments, 3,166 local government units in total (Ward 2006). New York contains 62 counties, 62 cities, 932 towns and 553 villa ges. This number does not include school and fire districts. The State of Florida, with about the same population as New York State, has twothirds fewer local
131 government units (Florida League of Cities). Granted, New York cannot compete with Illinois whi ch has over 6,000 governmental units, but the control that the state attempts to exert over this large number of local entities adds to an already tense environment. More than half of the states residents live in a city. New York City alone includes 42% of the states total population. The mayor and city council in New York City are very powerful and have more constituents than governors and legislatures in 39 states (Boyd 2006). In 2003, New York States total tax revenues were $40.7 billion while ta x revenue in New York City and other local municipalities totaled $51.1 billion. Local governments spent $118.4 billion while the state spent $89.4 billion. Tax payers in New York pay more to cities and local governments than they pay to the state (Ward 2006). With the total number of local governments and total population proving to be a daunting task for state government, the state has offered incentives for local governments to work cooperatively and consolidate. Unfortunately, these inc entives have resulted in almost no government consolidation. The greatest source of conflict between the city and the rest of the state revolves around the population of New York City. The racial and ethnic composition of the city along with the disparity between the rich and poor spurs these differences. The largely nonwhite pop ulation lives in the city while the white pop ulation live mostly i n suburbs or upstate (Stonecash 2006). New York has the longest running form of divided party control of its legislature than any other state in t he U.S., with Democrats originating generally from New York City and Republicans from upstate New York. In New York nonwhites, urban groups, and the less affluent tend to align with the Democratic Party, while whit es, suburban and rural groups, and the affluent are more likely to align with the Republican Party (Stonecash 2006). These
132 differ ences continue to cause disputes that affect state and local relationships. In fact, emotions from upstate New York with regard to New York City range from bemusement to hostility (Pecorella 2006). Though the state cannot constitutionally impose laws on individual cities, the state has enacted legislation that disproportionately affects New York City. For example, the governor appoints most of the seats on the NYC Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board. The state regulates how the city administers the Safety Net Assistance Program, which is a city wide program that works with families who have reached their five y ear welfare deadline (Pecorella 2006). The state has also developed a tax structure for New York City which does not reflect tax structures in other cities and towns in the state (Boyd 2006). On one hand, New York City exercises great influence in the leg islature while it must at the same time go to Albany with its hat in its hand asking for fiscal authority (Pecorella 2006) Regarding the citizens of New York State, compared to national averages, New York has more persons over 65, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, women, disabled, and college educated than the national average (US Census Bureau). While New York State is more diverse than the U.S. average, it is New York City that accounts for most of this diversity. T he average African American population in the U.S. is 12.9%. New York Citys African American population is estimated at 25.1%. Similarly, the average Hispanic population is 15.8%; New York Citys Hispanic population is estimated at 27% (US Census Bureau) New York has b een the target o f terrorist attacks and attempted attacks and the state has the potential for both manmade and natural disasters. The state has one Tier 1 UASI region (New York City) and four Tier 2 regions (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse) (DHS ).
133 Since 1954, New York has declared 76 major disasters including, hurricanes, earthquakes, health risks, terrorist attacks, and fires. First responders in New York prepare for snowfall, floods, earthquakes, power outages, tropical storms, and terrorist a ttacks (NOAA). While the events of September 11th were terrifying and tragic, they were not enough to motivate New York State and all of its local governments to collaborate. For many years, local governments had operated on their own communications s ystems and they were not easily willing to trust the state. The state did not make the local government decision to collaborate any easier. From the beginning, the process was inherently political. The New York Legislature held a hearing for first responders to voice their concerns regarding interoperable communications in March of 2004. At that time, New York was willing to spend $500 million on a Statewide Network (SWN) that would serve state police and other state agencies. First responders expressed concern that the Office for Technology (OFT) had failed to adequately involve local stakeholders in the SWN planning process. The legislature felt that SWN should be a statewide system and not just available to state agencies. They also recommended t hat a task force consisting of communications specialists be established to collect stakeholder input. The Statewide Wireless Advisory Council (SWN Advisory Council) was created in July of 2004 to satisfy that purpose. The legislative sponsor was Senator Michael Balboni who was a strong supporter of the SWN and now serves on the SWN Advisory Council (Silver 2004) At that time the state had approved a contract to begin construction of the SWN. Local governments were still unaware of the states plans and several assemblymen began to criticize Governor George Pa taki for his lack of leadership. They felt that local first responders were not being consulted and the SWN Advisory Council was not being utilized for its intended purpose.
134 Local representatives interested in upgrading their equipment complained that they could not do so until they knew whether it would be compatible with the states plan (Silver 2004). A legislative hearing was held in May of 2004 after the contract was awarded for the SWN. The original price of SWN was estimated to be $300 $500 million but the cost had somehow risen to $1 billion. Assembly members were angered that they had not been kept informed about the cost of the system. Furthermore, an argument broke out between the Vic e President of Motorola and the General Manager of M/A COM who had been awarded the contract. Motorola had offered a lower bid but the state went with M/A COM who argued that their services were technically, financially, and environmentally superior (OSC 2006). Ethical issues were also called into question because both firms had used lobbyists as consultant s during the procurement process. Motorolas lobbyist had direct conversations with the Governors office and M/A COM employed former Senator A lphonse DAmato (Silver 2004). By 2005, local entities were still not being consulted on plans for SWN. The Chairman of the New York State Fire Chiefs said of the lack of coordination, The proposal in front of us for several years now is one as far as were concerned, of great vision, but not necessarily a shared vision (Silver 2004). In a letter to the Governor, State Comptroller Alan Hevesi wrote that the lack of coordination must be addressed or the S WN program would be shut down (Hevesi 2005) A representative from the New York State A ssociation of Counties criticized the lack of outreach. Elected officials representing counties did not understand SWN and were not interacting with the SWN Advisory Council. OFT was then charged wit h the development of a comprehensive outreach plan that addressed training, resources, SOPs, information sharing, and shared decision making. By November of 2006, OFT had developed an outreach program and
135 the Office of the State Comptroller conducted a se ries of audit s to assess the adequacy of the project (OSC 2006) SWN was slowly being adopted in New York but the $2 billion price tag and expensive equipment caused local governments to refuse to adopt the system. Most local governments who used SWN el ected to use gateways to connect with the state system (Jackson 2007). Tension reached a boiling point when M/A COMs system began failing its initial tests. M/A COM attempted to improve its product but after several years of failed test runs the stat e terminated their contract (Jackson 2009). M/A COMs lawyers argue that the state repeatedly hindered their performance and accused officials of making excuses to terminate the contract because of the states budget deficit (Jackson 2009). Thus began New Yorks rocky road to collaboration. Currently, i nteroperable communications systems va ry considerably throughout the S tate of New York. There are perhaps hundreds of different communications systems; there are even multiple systems being utilized w ithin a single jurisdiction. The state police use two different systems, the Department of Correctional Services has their own system, even the state universities and the Department of Environmental Conserva tion use their own systems (Office of Budget and Program Analysis 2006). The strength of communications in each system ranges f rom advanced to barely adequate. Success generally depends on the population of that locality. The largest cities have the strongest and most up to date capabilities. Furth ermore, collaboration is sporadic across the state. New York City has its own Interagency Communications Committee and counties in western and central New York have established their own joint planning committees (NYSCIP) The variation and the sheer number of communications systems have made it difficult for the state to inventory current capabilities. SIPO was unable to determine short and longterm
136 interoperability goals during the SCIP development process because they did not know what capabilities local gover nments were currently utilizing (NYSCIP). The New York Office for Technology (OFT) provides technology services and policy advice to state agencies and the Governor. Responsibility for interoperability was initially placed in this office because of their expertise in the IT field and their ability to develop and implement sweeping technology projects. SCIP development focus groups were coordinated by OFT Project Assistant, Vincent Stile (NYSCIP) The OFT also oversees the Statewide Interoperability Program Office (SIPO). The Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) is the director of SIPO. The Coordinators job is to establish management teams, meeting schedules, technical exercises, and training sessions. He must also maintain and implement the SCIP (NYSCIP) SIPO appoints three Regional Managers whose responsibility is to act as liaison s between local stakeholders and the Interoperability Coordinator. These Regional Managers must conduct outreach taskforce meetin gs in their respective regions twice a year. The regional meetings provide an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the development process when they are unable to attend RPC, SIEC, or SWN Advisory Council meetings (NYSCIP) The Statewide Wireless Network Advisory Council (SWN Advisory Council) was created by the New York State Technology Law Sections 401 and 402 in 2004. At the time, their responsibilities were to assist in the development of communications system that would link state and loca l first responders across the state. The SIEC serves as subject matter experts for the SWN Advisory Council. The SWN Advisory Council is overseen by the OFT. New York State has been organized into 3 regions based on the FCCs Regional Planning Committees The SWN Advisory Committee has charged each regions manager with the
137 responsibility of conducting community outreach programs with the l ocal community in each region (NYSCIP). The Outreach Office works with the three RPCs to gather feedback and recom mendations. SIEC members are encouraged to attend RPC meetings and provide information on the status of communications initiatives, the results of training exercises, task force activities, funding opportunities, and upcoming events (NYSCIP) Representativ es from SIPO, the SWN Advisory Council, SIEC, and Regional Task Forces have also participated in information sessions with other states and Canadian officials. Several months after the contract with M/A COM was terminated, Governor David Paterson, the OFT, and SIPO hosted a New York State Public Safety Interoperability Symposium. The goal of the symposium was to improve the governance structures which oversee the interoperability in the state. Nearly 250 people attended the event including state, loca l, federal, and tribal first responders, bordering states, and Canadian officials (Liotta 2009). Governor Paterson remarked that, Effective governance requires participation from the whole community, not just a single group or agency. I am confident a refined governance policy regarding interoperability will result in improved public safety throughout New York. The symposium also stressed the importance of interoperable communications and the need to invest in technology (Liotta 2009). Ex actly one year later, in July of 2010, Governor Paterson announced that he would be dissolving the SWN Advisory Council and integrating SIPO into the newly created Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. SIPO would no longer be under the control of OFT. At this time, there is no information available regarding whether the SIEC will continue or
138 disband and no one has been hired to serve as the Director of the Office of Interoperable and Emergency Communi cations (Office of the Governor 2010). The new office was a part of Patersons efficiency and budget cutting platform. The new structure will save the state an estimated $1.5 milli on annually and will purportedly focus on the development of a county driven statewide communications network. O FT will no longer be responsible for coordinating and overseeing mobile radio equipment and infrastructure and they will no longer manage the states 70 0 / 800 MHz frequencies (Liotta 2010). New Yorks current goal is to encourage local governments w ho are in the process of buying new equipment to be sure that it is compliant with Project 25 standards. To ensure that public safety agencies are buying the correct equipment, OFT and SIPO are responsible for reviewing proposed acquisition plans and providing recommendations. However the SCIP states that New York is a home rule state and purchasing authority ultimately rests with the local agency (NYSCIP) In late 2009, the New York State Council for Universal Broadband published a Broadband S trategic R oad Map which makes interoperable communications as a priority. In May 2010, the FCC granted New York State a waiver to construct wireless broadband networks in the 700MHz public safety spectrum. The state claims that it will save money by utilizing exis ting state infrastructure. They would also like to use this opportunity to build their relationship with local offices. The OFT will take the lead on the project (Liotta 2010) It is difficult to pinpoint who has provided leadership for New Yorks interoperable communications. Initial attempts at developing a statewide system wer e met with scandal and distrust, some thing that will not be easy to overcome given the precarious nature of the
139 relationship between the state and the city Governor Paterson has made some attempts to streamline the governance structure but none of these plans have yet to be carried out. New York State ut ilizes local, state, and federal funding sources. Local governments may receive state funding but are expected to seek out revenue from county administrators. New York has fulfilled its obligation to pass 80% of federal PSIC funding to local governments (NTIA). However, b ecause the SWN has been dissolved, the responsibilities of prioritizing funding ventures will likely be left to the Interoperability Coordinator and the state Office of Homeland Security. While state and local officials offer various discipline specific training opportunities, New York does not currently offer any training courses that focus exclusively on c ommunications though they are developing a training program that will partner with federal communications training. Federal agencies have developed communications specific programs and the New York OHS supports and a dvertises these opportunities (SAFECOM ). Few cross jurisdictional and cross disciplinary SOPs exist throughout the state of New York. Operational and upto date SOPs exist in high risk areas and in localities with cutting edge technology. A few counties and cities have developed interopera bility focused SOPs. (NYSCIP) Mutual aid agreements (MAA) are common throughout the state. All fire services are managed by a statewide mutual aid plan. Agreements have been established across jurisdictions, with neighboring states, and with Cana da. Most MAA do not address communications specifically but some localities have developed a plan for communicating with one another during emergencies (NYSCIP)
140 High, Moderate, and Low Levels of Collaboration Louisiana as a highly collaborative state Louisiana utilized a combination regional and subject specific approach to governance. When they began the SCIP development proces s they realized that they were not including enough input from local representatives. As a result, state officials chang ed the governance structure entirely and developed a more decentralized regional approach. The project had many supportive and devoted leaders ranging from governors to committee chairman and everyday emergency management staff members. Leaders were also able to provide enough motivation for local entities to adopt LWIN. Almost all public safety agencies in Louisiana use LWIN and the system is currently expanding to accommodate localities along the Gulf Coast and Arkansas. Organizations who are not LWIN subscribers either do not have the available technology or live in an area that has not yet been integrated into the system, though the state is working toward increased coverage across the state. Louisiana has received a great deal of funding from both the state legislature and the federal government. They offer training and SOPs for anyone using LWIN and their governing bodies have been codified under Louisiana Law, giving them the authority they need to enforce the objectives spelled out in the SCIP. While unfortunate, the catalyst for Louisianas success was Hurricane Katrina. Katrina gave Louisiana officials the leverage to successfully lobby for state and federal funding. It also gave public safety officials the incentive to work together. Wit hout Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana may never have developed LWIN. This evidence alone is enough to suggest that other factors did not play a role in Louisianas success and that all one state need do is to wait for a natural or manmade disaster in order to increase collaboration. As we found in the case of New York State, this is not always the case.
141 Arkansas as a highly collaborative state. Arkansas officials were fortunate that they did not have to fight against large powerful cities or existing c ommunications networks. However, a lack of city governments and existing networks were not the only variables that contributed to Arkansas success. Arkansas officials have come close to creating an ideal collaborative state through their use of politica l tools and policy inputs. Arkansas can attribute its success to supportive and visionary leadership and built in incentives, such as designated state funding for equipment purchases and a lack of user fees. As in Louisiana, anyone using the statewide system is offered training and the ability to sign and follow SOPs. Governance boards were established by executive order or Arkansas Code which gives them the legitimacy necessary to enforce and manage a statewide plan. Finally, and also like Louisiana, Arkansas officials have successfully developed a statewide network. Most public safety agencies in Arkansas use AWIN as their primary form of communication. While Arkansas is a low risk state, some natural disasters did occur during development of AWIN inc luding several tornados. This was enough to encourage local buyin and ensure the future of AWIN. Rhode Island as a moderately collaborative state. Rhode Island could easily have been designated a highly collaborative state. The small land area and few local entities make communication and ultimately collaboration between the state and local governments effortless. Though Rhode Island is a low risk state, officials were able to find common ground and work together because of a shared fear of a 9/11 or Katrina type incident. Former Governor Donald Carcieri made development of a statewide network a priority throughout his tenure and the CWG has provided constant leadership during the development and implementation process. RISCON users must sign SOPs and trainers travel to individual localities to conduct training exercises.
142 Furthermore, local governments have developed communications systems which have been linked together for statewide use by state level organizations. Implementation and decisi on making for RISCON is entirely decentralized and many state and local agencies use the system. However, while many state and local agencies use RISCON, it has not been adopted by a majority of users. There are several barriers to system adoptio n which the state either does or does not have control over. First, while RISCON was developed by utilized a decentralized approach, this has resulted in confusion over which agency should provide system leadership. Interestingly, Rhode Islands governance structure takes the form of a traditional hierarchy. While many local entities were consulting during the policy development process, few agencies feel that they must follow the advice of the lead agency, the CWG. This organization serves as an advisory council for another advisory council and does not have the legislative or executive backing necessary to enforce the plan. Funding has also proven to be a significant barrier. While, the state has spent a large portion of its federal grant money purc hasing equipment for local governments and developing RISCON, the state legislature has been unable to designate a funding source for system maintenance. Federal funding is quickly running out and some local entities are still unable to buy the necessary equipment, making collaboration difficult. Texas as a moderately collaborative state. Like Rhode Island, Texas could have easily been included in the highly collaborative category. Texas use of existing regional councils to organize localities is truly impressive. No other state in the analysis utilizes this type of strong regional council model. Texas Governor Rick Perry has been supportive of interoperability efforts and established the TxRC which is the primary governing board. Membership on the
143 TxRC is voluntary and representative of all levels of government. Finally, Texas has begun implementing the Channel Plan and users must sign an MOU to participate. Currently 1560 out of 5300 public safety agencies use the states Channel Plan and there are many reasons why more agencies have not decided to utilize the plan. The Texas Legislature has not established an ongoing funding source and has awarded only a small amount of funding to local agencies which makes it difficult for them to buy new e quipment. The Channel Plan can only be used during an emergency and is not available for everyday use. Because the Plan has not become a substitute for everyday use it may be unattractive for local agencies that already have their own communications net work. The difficult terrain in Texas has made it impossible to expand the Channel Plan across the entire state. Training is not yet available for anyone who does decide to adopt the Channel Plan. Finally, while membership on the TxRC includes all government levels, the organization only serves as the Governors advisory board and has no authority to enforce the statewide plan. All of these variables, some controllable (training, TxRC legitimacy, funding) and others are not (diverse terrain), combine to make collaboration difficult. California as a moderately collaborative state. California employees a mixed regional and subject specific approach to their governance structure. California is considered at risk for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Public safety officials in California are proud of a history of innovation and successful response to natural disasters, leading one to believe that they would be willing to come together for the sake of public safety. The state also utilizes the help of three organizations: the PSRSPC, which is responsible for gathering input f rom state agencies, CalSIEC, which is responsible for gathering input from local entities, and the OEC which works with all government lev els. Interestingly, CalSIEC wh ich is charged with local outreach is the only one of the three organizations that is not codified through California Law.
144 Individual disciplines in California have operated on their own networks for many years and they continue to focus on and update these networks. State officials have attempted to develop a System of Systems SoS, similar to RISCON in Rhode Island, which would link existing networks to one another. However, unlike Rhode Island, California has a large and diverse population and any new system must provide coverage to a much larger land area. Without a doubt, officials in California have the knowledge and motivation to implement the SoS but the largest barrier has been a lack of funding. This may seem odd considering that California has received most of its funding from the federal government; however, 80% of that funding went directly to local governments who spent the money on their own networks and projects. Furthermore, the state is experiencing a dire financial situation and a d esignated funding source is not likely to be secured in the near future. The lack of funding has resulted in training exercises being put on hold and a lack of SOPs. While CalSIEC and the PSRSPC are not making friends by seeking measures to force publ ic safety agencies to comply with the SCIP, they have very few options in a fiscally strapped state with a history of bad relationships between the state and local governments. Illinois as a moderately collaborative state. Many of Illinois collaborative inputs at first seem like a virtue but turn out to be a vice. For instance, Illinois has given its local governments home rule and control over their daily operations. Theoretically this arrangement is ideal, but in Illinois case there sometimes can be too much of a good thing. Most of the states energy goes to providing support for local entities, of which there are many, in fact, more than any other state. Not only does Illinois have numerous local governments but it also has countless communications networks and memoranda of understanding between public safety agencies. No wonder the state decided to develop a largely hierarchical governance structure. With so many
145 networks and local entities, how would they even begin to decide who and how many l ocal agencies should be included in the policy development and implementation process? Illinois is on the right track by developing its statewide network, STARCOM 21, and its status as a high risk state for potential terrorist activities makes this necessary. Furthermore, SOPs for STARCOM users and training exercises help to put both state and local agencies on the same page. Unfortunately, the questionable relationship between Motorola and the state, along with increasing monthly fees to use STARCOM, c oupled with the sheer number of unmanageable local entities, all make it difficult for the state and local governments to collaborate. Washington as a moderately collaborative state. While the state plans to create a multiple systems network, collaborat ion will be difficult because state officials are loath to force local governments to do anything, much less buy P25 compliant radios. This is interesting considering that local governments complained during the SCIP development workshop that a statewide plan would take control away from their locality and result in unfunded mandates. Unfunded m andates may not be too far off; the state legislature refuses to fund this project. It is difficult to explain why local governments do not trust the state. In Washingtons case it appears that too much of a good thing (local autonomy) can backfire and result in nothing actually getting accomplished, much like Illinois. Interestingly for Washington, their political systems are their strength and their collaborati ve inputs are their weaknesses. The state has given local entities autonomy and critical infrastructure within the state and the probability of natural disasters put Washington at risk. However, officials cannot secure funding, local governments are not well represented in the governance structure, there are no strong leaders, no SOPs, and no training exercises. This phenomenon has resulted in exactly what we would have
146 expected. Currently, the plans outlined in the SCIP have been put on hold and the mult iple systems network has not been created. Thus, the state itself, while well meaning, believes that it is creating a collaborative environment when in fact, the lack of policy inputs have led to failure. New York as a non collaborative state. Whil e New York State had more than enough funding and motivation (9/11) to develop a successful network, they were unable to garner local support and are in a period of major restructuring. Though the original governance structure included both a regional and subject specific approach, the state was unable to shed its historically bad relationship with its local governments and to add insult to injury, they continued to disregard the needs of local governments throughout the policy development process. Furthe rmore, private companies had far too much power in the decision making process which resulted in distrust and the eventual downfall of the entire system. Governor Paterson took a step forward by disbandi ng the old governance structure; however it is yet unknown how or if the new governor will make interoperability a priority. Officials at both the state and local levels have a difficult road ahead of them, particularly if they wish to mend broken fences and truly collaborate with local governments. P attern Matching and Propositions Proposition 1: A combination hierarchical and network approach will yield gr eater levels of collaboration. Governance structures should specifically include regional councils and/or subject specific committees with high lev els of local participation. Both highly collaborative and noncollaborative states utilize subject specific and regional governance structures. Louisiana and Arkansas use this approach while Rhode Island does not. Low and noncollaborative states, such as Washington and New York, also use these approaches. This indicates that a more decentralized governance s tructure does not always lead to increased collaboration.
147 Proposition 2: A strong figurehead, such as a governor, can create a sense of shar ed purpose and facilitate collaboration by including all relevant parties. The top five collaborative states (LA, AR, RI, TX, and CA) in this analysis all have strong leaders. It does not seem to matter whether leadership comes from a stro ng executive such as a governor or from a governing body. Strong leaders can both motivate and lobby for increased funding. Proposition 3: States with established statewide communications networks will collaborate with local entities States without statewide ne tworks can facilitate collaboration by finding an alternative method for bridging or patching existing technology. The top four collaborative states, along with Illinois all either have a statewide network in place or are working to bridge existing networks. Of course, development of a statewide network depends of funding and land that is conduc ive to modern technology. A statewide network does h ave its advantages including an increased sense of shared purpose among divergent interests. Proposit ion 4: States that provide a continuous designated funding source will encourage participation. In other words, a state in good fiscal health can expect positive relationships with its local governments. This proposition certainly does not lead to increas ed collaboration in every state. While states, such as Louisiana and Arkansas have set aside designated funding sources, New York appropriated the most significant amount of money from both federal and state sources and the result was a breakdown of the entire program. This simply proves that while money does make is easier for collaboration to develop, it is not the amount of money but how states choose to use that money that determines success. Arkansas and Rhode Island were given less money from the federal government than other states in this analysis and they found success. Proposition 5: Opportunities for professional development will keep local governments informed, increase chances for networking, and facilitate collaboration. Louisiana, Arka nsas,
148 Rhode Island, and Illinois all include training exercises in their statewide plan. However, training does not seem to indicate whether collaboration is more likely. Training appears to be highly correlated with whether a state has a statewide commun ications network. Proposition 6: Uniform agreements facilitate communication, increasing collaboration. SOPs also appear to be highly correlated with those states that have a statewide communications network. Proposition 7: Legislative or executive a ction brings legitimacy to the statewide plan or governing body and encourages local officials to accept the policy and collaborate. Only Louisiana, Arkansas, and California have governing boards that are supported by legislative or executive action. Thi s finding shows that legislative or executive action does bring legitimacy to the plan and is a helpful policy tool, but is not necessarily essential for success. For example, neither Rhode Island nor Texas has a governing board with statutory authority. Overall, strong leadership and a statewide network are proven inputs that can increase the likelihood of collaboration. However, as we can see from Table 3 20, the top two states have included all of the collaborative inputs. Political systems can also explain why some states were unsuccessful. Californias relationship with its local governments is growing increasingly sour due to the effects of Proposition 13 and the overall bad fiscal health of the state. Illinois and Washington both use relaxed home rule and New York cannot overcome its bad relationship with New York City. Interestingly, risk level had nothing to do with success. The second and third most collaborative states (Arkansas and Rhode Island) had the lowest risk levels and New York the highest. Finally, state demographics such as the number of local entities and the geography of the state made collaboration difficult for Texas, California, Illinois, and Washington.
149 In Chapter 4 we examine how the structure of relationships between organizations during the policy development process contributes to the success or failure of a policy. In this chapter, I delve into the relationship between organizations to determine whether the structure of these relationships and communication between and among actors contributed to each states success.
150 Figure 31. Emergency management regions Source: Arkansa s Dept of Emergency Management Figure 32. Hierarchical depiction of Arkansas governance structure. Table 3 1. F ederal f unding aw arded to Arkansas in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $11.17 mil IECGP $307,672 $338,500 UASI $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ADEM AICEC AICC Misc Committee Misc Committee Department of Information Systems AWIN Steering Committee Local Leadership Council
151 F igure 33. Hierarchical depiction of Californias interoperable governanc e structure. Table 3 2. F ederal f unding aw arded to California in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $94.0 IECGP $6.0 $5.5 UASI $136.29 $140.7 $143.79 $149.6 $154.5 Figure 34. Cal SIEC planning areas and mutual aid regions Source : Cal SCIP. OES (Governor's Office) CalSIEC (Local ) Operations Subcommittee Policy Subcommitte Capitol Bay Planning Area Central Planning Area Northern Planning Area Southern Planning Area Technical Subcommittee PSRSPC (State) Technical Working Group
152 Figure 35. Illinois regions. Source : Illinois SCIP Figure 36. Illinois governance structure. Table 3 3. F ederal f unding aw arded to Illinois in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2 010 PSIC $36.4 IECGP $2.0 $1.9 UASI $52.2 $47.3 $45.86 $52 $54.7 Co mmunications Committee Committe e Illinois EMA Governor State Police Illinois Terrorism Task Force State Interoperability Coordinator SIEC STARCOM 21 Committee
153 Figure 37. Louisiana homeland security regions Source : GOHSEP Figure 38. Louisianas communications governance structure. Unified Command Group GOHSEP SIEC Policy and Planning Committee Technology Committee Region 1 Region 6 Region 2 Region 7 Region 3 Region 8 Region 4 Region 9 Region 5 Finance and Budget Committee
154 Figure 39. Current LWIN availability. B lue areas are currently being installed, orange are in the development stage and green has full coverage. Source : GOHSEP Figure 310. Communications systems currently being integrated into Gulf WIN. Source : GOHSEP Table 3 4. F ederal f unding aw arded to Louisiana in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $19.67 IECGP $859,524 $945,500 UASI $8.43 $4.4 $6.0 $8.4 $8.4 Table 3 5. F ederal f unding aw arded to Rhode Island in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSI C $7.4 mil IECGP $242,875 $267,000 UASI $0 $5.2 mil $5 mil $4.7 mil $4.7 mil
155 Figure 311. FCC regional planning committees in New York. Table 3 6. Comparison of racial demographics in New York State, to New York City, and the national average. Source: US Census Bureau. New York State New York City U.S. Average White (Not Hispanic) 59.9% 35.1% 65.1% American Indian .6% .4% 1% Asian 7.1% 11% 4.6% Black 17.2% 25.1% 12.9% Hispanic 16.8% 27% 15.8% Native Hawaiian .1% .1% .2% Mixed Race 1 .6% 2% 1.7%
156 Figure 312. New York States former governance structure. Table 3 7. Federal funding awarded to New York in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $60.7 IECGP $7 mil $6.3 UASI $128 $139.5 $154 $156.8 $161.4 Figure 313. State planning regions and disaster district boundaries Source : TxSCIP SWN Advisory Council Office of Technology Statewide Interoperability Program Office Program Management Office Regional Manager Regional Manager Regional Manager Western and Northern NY Central and Downstate New York City Metropolitan Area SIEC (Local Membership) SWN Outreach Office RPC 8 RPC 30 RPC 55
157 Figure 314. Hierarchical depiction of Texass communications governance structure. Table 3 8. Federal funding awarded to Texas in mil lions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $63 IECGP $3.46 $3.8 UASI $34.9 $58.5 $51.42 $73.3 $80.8 Figure 315. Regional homeland security coordination districts Source : Information Services Board. Texas Homeland Security Office TxRC Steering Committee SIEC 24 Regional Planning Groups Interop Committee or Staff Working Groups Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group Work Group
158 Figure 316. Washi ngton States communications governance structure. Washington State uses a combination Regional and Subject Specific approach to governance. Table 3 9. Federal funding aw arded to Washington in millions. FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 PSIC $19.2 IECGP $1.2 $1.0 UASI $9.0 $10.6 $10.34 $11.0 $11.0 Table 310. Comparison of governance structures. Governance Structure Louisiana Combination regional approach with subject specific committees on the SIEC. Arkansas Subject specific approach Rhode Island Traditional approach to governance, decentralized technology Texas Established regional councils promote inclusion of local officials California Combination regional approach with subject specific committees. Illinois Combination leverages and traditional approach. Washington Combination regional approach with subject specific committees. New York Used to operate based on a combination regional and subject specific approach. ISB SIEC SAW Subject Specific Work Groups Washington State Police Region 43 Committee Nine Homeland Security Planning Regions Two UASI Regions
159 Table 311. Comparison of leadership. Le adership Louisiana Governors Blanco and Jindal have been supportive of state efforts. GOHSEP Director, Mark Cooper, and SIEC Chair Brant Mitchell have been instrumental in developing LWIN. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee made emergency communications a priority. AWIN Program Director, Penny Rubow, has been instrumental. Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri has provided support and CWG members have provided necessary motivation and leadership. Texas Governor Rick Perry established the TxRC and endor sed the SCIP proposals. The TxRC allows open membership and has been a source of knowledge and leadership. Regional councils also provide leadership. California No standout leader, though, the state is a leader in disaster management and state and local officials take great pride in their accomplishments. Illinois No strong leadership. Questionable relationship with Motorola. Washington No strong leadership. New York Governor Paterson provided the most recent leadership by restructuring governance organizations. Former governing bodies did not include locals in decision making process. Governor and the legislature made questionable decisions. Scandal and the current lack of trust will be difficult to overcome. Table 3 12. Statewide networks av ailable. Is Statewide Technology Available? Louisiana Yes, LWIN Arkansas Yes, AWIN Rhode Island Yes, RISCON Texas No using IP networks, gateways, and patches to connect localities. California No, want to develop a System of Systems but have not yet completed due to budget constraints Illinois Yes, trying to implement STARCOM 21 but have not attracted many users. There are many networks in operation throughout the state. Washington No would like to expand the multiple systems network to link local and state agencies. The plan has been slow to develop due to funding constraints, diverse terrain, and varying technology. New York No plans for development of SWN were called off. There are numerous interoperable communications systems throughout the state based on first responder discipline.
160 Table 313. Comparison of funding across states. Funding Louisiana State has established a designated funding source. Has received a large amount of federal funding. Arkansas State h as established a designated funding source. Minimal federal funding. Rhode Island Some state and federal funding. No designated funding source. Texas Minimal state funding. No designated state funding source. California Minimal state funding. Sta te is in deep financial trouble and often borrows money from local governments. Illinois State has given some money. Most funding is from federal sources. STARCOM users must pay a monthly fee to use the network. Washington Minimal state and federal funding. New York State was willing to give $500 million for SWN. Has received a large amount of federal funding. Table 314. Comparison of training available across states. Training Louisiana Available for LWIN users or anyone working with L WIN users. Arkansas Available for AWIN users or anyone working with AWIN users. Rhode Island Available for RISCON users. Texas Plans to develop an online course for interoperability training. California No specific communications training offered. Ill inois STARCOM 21 and general communications training offered. Washington No specific communications training offered. New York No specific communications training offered. Table 315. Comparison of SOP s across states. SOP or MOU Louisiana LWIN use rs must sign SOPs. Arkansas AWIN users must sign SOPs. Rhode Island RISCON users must sign SOPs. Texas Channel plan users must sign an MOU California Currently developing an SOP to manage SoS users. Illinois STARCOM 21 users must sign an SOP. Washin gton No SOP for multiple subsystems network but other communications networks require SOPs. New York No statewide communications agreements. Some local governments have established SOPs and MOUs for general emergency management.
161 Table 316. Stat utory authority Statutory Authority Louisiana Act 797 establishes the Office of Interoperability and the SIEC. Arkansas AICC and AICEC created by executive order. ADEM and DIS have ultimate authority. Rhode Island The CWG serves as an advisory counci l to another agency and is not have statutory authority. Texas TxRC was established as an advisory board to the governor. No power to enforce. California PSRSPC and OES are codified. CalSIEC, who works with local entities has indirect authority throug h another agency. Illinois SIEC is overseen by the governor. Established through bylaws under State Radio Act which limits its power. Washington SIEC is the subcommittee of an agency, no real legitimacy. New York No government structures are curre ntly in operation. Table 3 17. Comparison of political history. Political History Louisiana All parishes have home rule. Arkansas Counties have home rule. Local officials would like more autonomy but voters rejected because they wanted stable st ate funding. Rhode Island No county government because of size. Texas Limited home rule for cities. Lack of trust for strong executives. California Voter referendums have changed the relationship betwee n the state and local s. Illinois Home rule is po pular and the state gives more autonomy to local governments than other states. State rarely enforces laws that are meant to control localities without home rule. Washington State continues to increase autonomy given to counties. Decentralized, the st ate is does not wish to intrude on the rights of locals. New York Local governments have home rule status but only symbolically. Tensions exist between New York City and the rest of the state. Table 3 18. Comparison of risk level. Risk Level Lo uisiana High risk for natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina was the catalyst for action. Arkansas Low, at risk for natural disasters / tornados. Rhode Island Very low risk for natural disasters. Texas High, at risk for natural disasters, border securit y, oil refineries. California High, at risk for natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Illinois High, at risk for terrorist attacks. Washington Moderate, critical infrastructure concerns and natural disasters. New York Very high, at risk for terroris t attacks, some natural disasters.
162 Table 3 19. State d emographics State Demographics Louisiana Reasonable number of local entities. Highly poor and non white population. Arkansas Reasonable number of local entities. Highly poor, white population. R hode Island Only 5 counties and 39 cities and towns in the entire state. Texas Large number of counties, diverse terrain, large Hispanic population. California Large and diverse population, diverse terrain. Illinois Over 6,700 local governments, mor e than any other state. Washington Homogenous population, higher than average wealth Diverse terrain. New York 3,166 local governments. Diverse population that lives mostly in cities. Table 3 20. Fulfillment of propositions according to state. L A AR RI TX CA IL WA NY Proposition 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposition 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposition 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposition 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposition 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposition 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposi tion 7 Yes Yes Yes
163 CHAPTER 4 POLICY DEVELOPMENT BY NETWORK The public safety agencies that choose to participate in policy development are embedded in a network of interrelationships with other organizations. The structure that results illustrates the interdependence of agencies who must communicate, compete, and cooperate to develop an acceptable policy. In this chapter, I design a network for each state that represents the structure that was created during the policy development process. I then evaluate how the relationships between organizations contributed to the success or failure of a policy. The networks in this chapter represent the approach that the state took to gather information from stakeholders and develop the SCIP.1Emphasis is placed on the policy development process because often the success or failure of a policy can be traced back to its origin al design (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004). The development process is where the collaborative bond begins. The willingness of local enti ties to participate in the implementation of the SCIP is likely to be a direct result of the opportunity they were given to contribute to its development. For organizations to want to collaborate they must feel invested in the policy (Bardach 1998) If t he design is unacceptable or if some agencies do not feel as if they were included then we can expect the policy to fail Literature on the policy development process generally focuses on the topics discussed in previous chapters: inputs, outputs, and out comes. Yet earlier research does not explain how a network of relationships contribute to the success of a policy. In a situation where collaboration is our end goal, the stru cture of the relationship is the key to reaching that goal. 1 The network structure does not represent the process whereby the state governs the imple mentation of the SCIP, nor does it represent any outreach programs that were employed after the SCIP was developed.
164 Network analys is gives us the opportunity to look at the policy development process from another angle. By using network analysis techniques, we can understand the strength of the relationship betw een local and state governments and determine how this contributes to the overall success of the policy. We can also map the flow of information from one agency to another and examine which organizations are the most powerful A network structure assumes that people influence each other, ideas flow through relationships, and above all, the structure of the relationship matters (Borgatti et al. 2009). When designing the policy development network, I included ties that I could confirm actually exist. Information from the state SCIP, meeting minutes, and other journalistic and government documents were examined to determine which agencies were involved and with who m they communicated. If there was no record of a tie between agencies, it was not included. Moreover, many of the organizations involved work with each other in varying capacities. For example, some agencies have formed committees that collaborate on port security or bioterrorism issues. While outside relationships may also influence policy development, I do not assume that these relationships contributed to th e SCIP directly. Therefore, I only include direct relationships that facilitate collaboration specifically for interoperability. In the following section I explain the network techniques that were employed in this analysis to examine whether the policy development process was able to facilitate collaboration. Did some agencies serve as gatekeepers or brokers: did they increase their power by passing along information to the state? Was the relationship based on professional affiliations? Finally, local entities in most states must volunteer to participate in the policy de velopment process. Exactly which agencies were being represented and why?
165 Hypothesis #1: Network structures that include a combination of dense internal relationships a nd open external relationships (structural holes) will increase the likelihood of collaboration (Reagans et al. 2004) Successful collaborative endeavors require trust, reciprocity, shared norms and values, and general agreement on goals and objectives. Successful policy design requires innovative ideas, bargaining, and diverse information from varied sources. These two expectations require contradictory governing structures. Consider Figure 41. In the first diagram, A, B, and C share a close relation ship. Each actor is connected to the others. If the relationship is healthy, they will all share information and foster some level of trust and reciprocity. This same analogy can be applied to emergency management agencies that collaborate to develop a communications policy. The ultimate goal is to foster a sense of trust among participants. The close relationship in Diagram 1 gives everyone an opportunity to share information and develop a plan that meets the goals of each agency. By contrast, the second figure creates a boundary between certain members of the group. None of the agencies involved are directly tied to one another. B, C, D, and E must all go through A to speak to one another. There is likely no trust or reciprocity because most of the agencies do not even know one another. The second diagram is easily criticized in the context of collaboration because it fosters competition rather than cooperation. Burt (1992) calls the gaps in communication present in Diagram 2, structural ho les and he argues that there are advantages to their existence. Advantages include new and innovative ideas and the opportunity for group members to learn from new experiences and expertise. It is also important to reach out to other organizations that are not included in the group. Structural holes allow for dialogue between organizations outside
166 of a close knit group; on the other hand, a dense cluster of organizations will stay within their own ranks and may not seek out information from outside of t he group. Diagrams I and II are extreme. Each state included numerous, sometimes hundreds, of agencies in the development of the SCIP. But each state designs its policy development process with more or less emphasis on structural holes. States that ho ld focus group meetings or ask regions to hold information gathering sessions with their local governments will have more s tructural holes than a state which consults with only a select group of stakeholders. In some states, actors in the policy devel opment process are there by design. They are passive recipients of the network structure (Borgatti and Foster 2003). In this case, the SIEC or some other state agency designs the structure around which they will participate. The SIEC might offer focus gr oup meetings or regional information gathering sessions and the participants must decide to contribute within the confines of this structure. Or, as in some states, participation is voluntary and organizations must determine how they will contribute. In both cases, relationship structure determines who is heard and how important their contribution is to the collaborative endeavor. Figure 42 provides an example of why str ucture is important. State A has decided to bring state and local entities together to develop a particular policy. The state is divided into four homeland security regions (red dots) Each region holds a focus group an d they all work together to identify policy goals. Even some of the local governments have direct access to t he state, though the regional groups act as representatives for them. The final recipient of this information is the state SIEC or some other governing body (blue dots) State B also has homeland security regions. They hold regional focus groups and the members of most of the groups never communicate with one another and never directly
167 communicate with the state. State B has a significant amount of power in the policy development process. The state makes final decisions regarding what will and will no t be included in the SCIP. Unlike S tate A, the regions in State B are not communicating with one another. This creates a sort of us versus them mentality where local governments compete for their own interests (Johnson 1967) If the goal is to create a collaborative environment, the last thing the state should do is create secrecy and competition On the other hand, State B is more likely to yield new and innovative solutions to the communications problems plaguing the state because there is a greater opportunity for actors to talk with others outside of the group. T he local agenci es in State A are all connected and no new information is flowing through the network. The group can only know what everyone in the group knows. State B has several struc tural holes where information can flow from any possible unknown source. Hypothesis #2: Direct contact between organizational participants and the decision maker increases the likelihood of collaboration. Those who serve as gatekeepers must be trustworthy. Who is the most important actor in a network ? In Figure 42, the regional agencies in State B se rve as brokers or gatekeepers. A broker bridges two networks together. Ideally, a broker would provide a bridge in between two or more networks of agencie s (Gould and Fernandez 1989). As you will see, this is the case in several states. The broker usually has the most power because the actors on each side of the broker do not communicate, thus, increasing the likelihood that they could be dishonest or neg lect to submit every concern to the state. Centrality measures how an actors position in the collaborative group contributes to his importance (Borgatti et al. 2009). I obs erve three types of centrality: degree, closeness, and betweeness, all of whi ch are acquired through Ucinet software and based on individual scores.
168 First, how well connected an actor is to the group can be determined by degree centrality, which measures the number of organizations that each individual is tied to. The greater the degree centrality, the more opportunity there is for an organization to be influenced and for them to influence others. All things considered, it might matter more profoundly who the agency is connected to rather than to how many agencies they are conne cted (Lin 2000). Secondly, closeness measures how far one agency is from another. For the sake of individual agencies involved in the collaborative effort, we would like to see information flow from them to the decision makers rather than through a gatekeeper because that information has the chance to become polluted. Finally, betweeness identifies how often one organization lies along the shortest path between other organizations. The organization with the highest betweeness score is the primary gatek eeper or the individual that others must go through to be heard. Hypothesis #3: Network structures that include a range of disciplines (fire, police, EMS) and government levels (local, state, federal), will increase the likelihood of collaboration. Ther e is evidence in the literature that suggests that people, or in this case organizations, with similar characteristics or occupations are more likely to work together (Brass 1985; McPherson et al. 1987). Fire fighters are more likely to work with fire fig hters, EMS with EMS and so forth. Occupational diversity is hypothesized to decrease a collaborative groups density; team members from different disciplines will exhibit weak relationships with one another. The notion that people base relationships on similarities is called homophily. Reagans et al. (2004) argue that this is not always the case, depending on the context of the network. In particular, if the team members have past experience interacting with members of different categories (Westphal and Milton 2000) or if the organization [al] culture fosters the creation of crosscategory relationships (Chatman et al. 1998; Polzer et al. 2002), then homophily will be
169 attenuated (Reagans et al. 2004). Emergency management presents an interesting oppor tunity to test whether a shared mission and goals, rather than a common occupation, encourages organizations to collaborate. Louisiana Unlike most states, Louisiana started their process of SCIP development well before it was mandated by the federal government. In 2005, GOHSEP convened a 3 day stakeholder meeting with 120 participants. Members of 59 of the 64 parishes in the state attended. The network formed at this meeting is represented in Figure 4 3. Officials realized that the stakeholder meetin g alone was not able to facilitate the level of buyin that they had hoped for so they decided to develop a new strategy. The Louisiana SIEC was not formally established by the Louisiana Legislature until 2008 but it began work in 2007. The SIEC is tasked with facilitating collaborative efforts by gathering input from public safety officials from across the state. STEP 1: State and local agencies were required to complete a needs assessment survey prior to regional focus groups. The results of the survey allowed state officials to determine the level of construction necessary for LWIN. State and local agencies who did not complete the survey were ineligible for State Homeland Security Grant funding. All agencies completed the survey. STEP 2: The SIEC employed a series of working groups, focus groups, and strategic planning sessions to gather input from local officials. A focus group session was held in each of the nine homeland security regions from May until August of 2007. Focus groups were facilitated by the SIEC Technical Subcommittee and participants included that regions interoperable working group. STEP 3: The Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP), an organization sponsored by DHS, hosted a SCIP development workshop in September 2007 and members of the Planning Subcommittee were in attendance. STEP 4: During the final development stages of the SCIP, the SIEC Technical and Planning subcommittees met to finalize their implementation strategy. Other subcommitte es also met to edit and finalize the SCIP where appropriate.
170 Louisiana included 111 organizations in the SCIP development process. Figure 43, as opposed to 4 4, illustrates the progress that Louisiana officials made by altering the structure of the in formation gathering process. Figure 44 demonstrates a combination of internal density and structural holes in an organized regional structure. In this network, locals speak to regional representative and some speak directly to decisions makers at the st ate level. Figure 49 illustrates that regions have the greatest number of ties, making them more likely to influence or be influenced: Region 8 (38, 35.45), Region 4 (33, 30.9), and Region 6 (32, 30). Information is flowing directly from local agenci es to decision makers, as illustrated by the closeness score. GOHSEP has a closeness score of 100, the Ascension Sheriffs Office has a score of 91.66, and Region 3 has a score of 90.9. Region 3 is also a member of the SIEC which means that information is flowing directly to GOHSEP, a local SIEC member, and a region, a rare combination. In fact, many regions had high betweeness scores most likely because they are also members of the SIEC, acting as direct decision makers. Inclusion of the Ascension Sheriff s Office may seem odd, but this local agency is a member of the SIEC and the SIEC Technical Subcommittee which puts it into a unique position to be both a small local government entity and a decision maker. Figure 45 suggests that most participant s came from general emergency management offices. While greater participation from other service types is favorable, emergency management agencies commonly communicate with other disciplines making it fair to assume that they were able to convey details of the plan with other agencies in their area. Arkansas In late summer of 2007, the Arkansas Department of Information Systems (DIS) and Department of Emergency Management (ADEM) assembled a group of stakeholders to develop the SCIP. A statewid e interoperability governing body (SIEC) was not established prior to the
171 SCIP development process. Unlike most states, stakeholders were chosen and participation was not voluntary. DIS and ADEM used the existing structure of AWIN to determine who should be involved in the policy development process. Participants were selected to ensure representation from all emergency response disciplines, key non governmental stakeholders, regions of Arkansas, and levels of government (ARSCIP). Public safety offi cials involved in the SCIP development proc ess m et during a stakeholder meeting and a strategic planning session over the course of 3 months to map out a vision for the SCIP. Several interviews were conducted after the initial stakeholder meeting with a g roup of participants from across various disciplines and regions. Information obtained during the interviews were included in the SCIP and helped to inform the strategic planning session. Finally interviews were conducted with the Little Rock Metropolita n Working Group who developed the Little Rock Metro TICP. Information from the TICP was integrated into the SCIP. The Little Rock Metropolitan Working group was invited to the strategic planning session a nd reviewed drafts of the SCIP. Arkansas did not hold any regional focus groups due to time constraints (ARSCIP) STEP 1: DIS and ADEM selected officials to participate in the planning process and held an initial stakeholder meeting. STEP 2: DIS and ADEM conducted interviews which yielded input from a group of stakeholders and helped to inform the strategic planning session. STEP 3: DIS and ADEM held a final strategic planning session. Arkansas included 37 organizations in the development of the SCIP and participation was not voluntary; state off icials chose the participants. Figure 46 illustrates Arkansas lack of internal density. None of the participating organizations appear to be very close which may have been one reason why Arkansas had such a difficult time facilitating local participation in the
172 beginning. Arkansas model does show that structural holes were present. This is beneficial because external ties allow organizations to gather information from outside of the group. The Arkansas DIS (30, 83.33) and DEM (30, 83.33) offices each have the same degree centrality score which indicates that they are linked to more organizations than any other actor. This is likely because of their joint role as group leaders. The first number in the degree score indicates that the organization had ties to 30 out of 37 other organizations in the network. The Little Rock Metropolitian Working Group also had a number of ties with other organizations (8, 27.77) which would suggest that Little Rock provided more input than other participants. Those same organizations also share the top three closeness and betweeness scores, DIS (85.71, 45), DEM (85.71, 45), and the Little Rock Working Group (56.25, 30.95), meaning that all three serve as gatekeepers and lie on the shortest path from one organization to the next. Th ese three groups have an opportunity to influence and be influenced. Alt hough there were only a small number of organizations involved in the development process, information flowed smoothly from local to state agencies, who were in thi s case the final decision makers. From Chapter 3, we know that local buyin was initially difficult for Arkansas officials. Development of the SCIP may have provided an opportunity to include more local agencies and quickly increase buy in. Figure 47 shows that Arkansas officials included only two fire agencies and one medical group, though they claim that participants were chosen in an effort to be inclusive. Rhode Island Due to its geographic size, Rhode Island was not broken into regions f or development or implementation of the SCIP or RISCON. The Communications Working Group (CWG) which has the primary responsibility for communications planning and interoperability, includes local, state, and federal agencies as well as non profit and pr ivate organizations.
173 Throughout the planning process, RIEMA staff led the SCIP planning effort and worked with the CWG to develop planning meetings and conduct interviews. Both groups sought out information from various stakeholder groups and conducted b riefing sessions and interviews with the Association of Fire Chiefs, the Police Chiefs Association, the Local Emergency Management Directors Association, the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the League of Cities and Towns, the Citizens Corps Council, the Hospi tal Association, the National Guard, and the United States Coast Guard. The dense cluster of organizations on the left are members of the CWG This group sought out information from general organizations and unions such as the Fire Chiefs Association. T his seems like a good strategy because these groups have many stakeholders, but we do not know if these stakeholders were consulted. The two actors in the center are representatives from RIEMA who were responsible for interviewing the organizations on the right. Figure 49 shows that even CWG members interviewed, giving these organizations the ability to provide additional input. The RIEMA representatives served as gatekeepers, controlled the flow of information, and serve as the most influential members of the network. Both have a closeness score of 100, meaning that they are connected to everyone in the network. They also have the greatest number of ties with other organizations (31), though the Rhode Island Association of Fire Chiefs and the Police Ch iefs Association (25) also have a large number of ties. These scores demonstrate that everyone in the network is directly connected to the most influential decision makers. Finally, like most of the states in the analysis, Rhode Island has included a r easonable number of diverse government levels and service types. Texas The development of the SCIP began by using the information and guidance of several plans already completed in the state: the Texas Radio Communications Interoperability Plan
174 (TR CIP), the Texas Statewide Interoperability Channel Plan, and the SAFECOM SCIP Methodology. STEP 1: In May of 2007 the Texas Director of Homeland Security asked the TxRC to update the Radio Communications Interoperability Plan (TRCIP) according to SAFECOM s guidelines, essentially revising the T RCIP and turning it into the SCIP. The TxRC worked with the Texas Association of Regional Councils (TARC) to conduct a survey that would inventory the communications assets of first responders across the state. Re presentatives from each region completed the public safety survey and the results of these surveys were used as a guid e and discussion tool during focus group meetings. More than 1000 surveys were completed and returned for analysis. Of the 24, it was det ermined that 12 regions did not have the necessary radio coverage to perform their jobs effectively (TxSCIP) STEP 2: The TxRC facilitated 27 focus groups in each of the various regions. The TxRC was responsible for managing and administering the meetings, group sessions, research and data collection, and the overall development of the SCIP. After the sessions were completed, 25 regions submitted reports that prioritized their communications conc erns into hot topics. Each focus group region sent their top 5 hot topics to the TxRC to be considered for inclusion in the SCIP. Over 100 hot topics were converted into critical initiatives and were included in the SCIP. STEP 3: The TxRC held a s tatewid e strategic planning session to develop and prioritiz e short and longterm communications initiatives for inclusion in the SCIP. STEP 4: TxRC working groups drafted the SCIP and sent the draft to the TxR C Steering Committee and then ICTAP (part of DHS) for review. Every member of the TxRC contributed to t he development of the SCIP (TxSCIP). STEP 5: The f inal version was submitted to the governor for approval and then sent to DHS. The TxRC included 187 organizations in the development of the SCIP. The regional structure is ideal for Texas whose diverse terrain contributes to diversity among the needs of local agencies. Officials in Texas made use of existing regional councils to form a network that boasts high levels of local participation. Figure 411 illustrates the network of regional councils and TxRC members formed through the development process. In this model, some regional representatives and local agencies are clearly on the outside while the dense relationships between TxRC members is illustrated on the inside. Unlike Louisiana, not all regional council
175 managers are members of the TxRC, leaving regions who are not members to compete for their own interests. While one could argue that the TxRC has too much power, their membership is large and open to an agency who wishes to join. Not sur prisingly, the TxRC has the highest degree (93, 50), closeness (66.66), and betweeness centrality (77.34) scores. The Texas Association of Regional Councils has the second largest set of centrality scores. Its degree centrality (26, 13.97) gives the Counc il the ability to influence and be influenced by others in the network. Information flows directly through the network from local agencies to the TxRC and secondarily through the Regional Council (53.75). Likewise, both of these organizations serve as ga tekeepers; the Regional Council has a betweeness score of 19.33. Several populous regions such as Region 16 Houston, Region 12 Austin, and Region 4 Dallas Ft Worth, also have high centrality scores which indicate that they serve secondary roles as decision makers and gatekeepers. As in most states, Figure 412 demonstrates that Texas has included a respectable combination of service disciplines and focuses mainly on the inclusion of city and county governments and emergency management services. Califo rnia Two hundred and ten practitioners from 137 agencies were involved in the development of CalSCIP. The OES wa s and still is, responsible for general statewide interoperability planning and, at the time, focused on outreach to UASI regions CalSIEC wa s responsible for acquiring input from local agencies and the PSRSPC was responsible for providing the stat e agency perspective (CalSCIP). Both CalSIEC and the PSRSPC feel that development of the SCIP has strengthened their relationship (CalSCIP). STEP 1: One strategy meeting was held in each CalSIEC Planning Area and a meeting was also held among the members of the PSRSPC Technical Working Groups (TWG). The goal of these meetings was to provide stakeholders with an understanding of the SCIP
176 process and SAFECOM requirements. After the strategic planning meetings, CalSIEC then convened three statewide meetings which were open to the public and feedback on key issues was encouraged. The PSRSPC TWG held six CalSCIP development meetings with state agenci es. STEP 2: Once a draft was developed, members of a working group comprised of both CalSIEC and PSRSPC members met to review the drafts. STEP 3: Practitioners unable to participate in any of the other meetings were encouraged to give feedback through the National Interoperability Information Exchange (NIIX). Figure 413 shows that Californias network includes both structural holes and one cluster of participants to the left. This cluster represents the members of the PSRSPC. The structural holes on the right illustrate that most of the direct communication with local agencies came from CalSIEC. Again, the presence of structural holes can encourage organizations to speak wit h others outside of the group. Conversely, there is no evidence that the loc al agencies who communicated with CalSIEC were also communicating with one another. T he lack of communication between actors may have resulted in a lack of cohesion. Had the group been more cohesive, would they have been able to facilitate more cooperati on and lobby the legislature for increased support? CalSIEC, who was charged with acquiring information from local agencies, has the highest degree centrality score (116, 83.45). The PSRSPC (30, 20.14) and the California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) (19, 13.66) follow, giving them the most power to influence and be influenced by the group, because they have the largest number of ties with other agencies. These organizations also have the highest closeness scores (CalSIEC 85.80; PSRSPC 56.048; C alTrans 52.45) which indicates that information was flowing from the other agencies direc tly to the decision makers. CalTrans status seems unusual, but makes more sense when we consider that they are a member of both the PSRSPC and CalSIEC. In fact, as F igure 4 15 illustrates, most of the PSRSPC members have high betweeness scores which typically indicates that they serve as
177 gatekeepers. Though, the top three gatekeepers are the decision makers (CalSIEC 92.69; PSRSPC 14.14; OEC 8.55). In California, a ll service types are well represented ( refer to Figure 4 14 ). California utilizes the expertise of their UASI regions which can serve as catalysts for local involvement. Most UASI consist or more than one city and are able to connect with other local agencies in their region, giving those organizations a chance to indirectly contribute to policy development. Illinois Eightyeight organizations played a role in the SCIP development process in Illinois. The SCIP was developed by members of the ITTF Communications Committee and the SIEC. Members of the document draf ting committees sought out information from the other members of the ITTF and the SIEC and representatives from the drafting group would periodically brief the members of the larger organization s (ITTF and SIEC) during the process. Membership on these committees is spelled out in their charter. Local agencies cannot join the ITTF unless they have a more than 100,000 residents in their jurisdiction (ILSCIP). Illinois officials chose these two groups for several reasons. First, they felt that their membership was representative of the larger public safety community in Illinois. Second, because the ITTF Communications Committee consists of subject matter experts in the fields of technology, tra ining, and usage, and the SIEC would eventually govern and implement the SCIP, both organizations felt that they should have a say in the design of oversight practices (ILSCIP). Illinoiss network includes a highly dense group of actors characterized by three clusters of networks. In Figure 416 the SIEC is the cluster on the left, the ITTF is the large group on the right, and the ITTF Communications Commi ttee is located in the center. The labeled organizations are members of all three groups. This lev el of density can lead to a lack of information flowing from and into the group; the members are representative s of larger
178 associations and unions and we cannot know whether they are keeping their members abreast of the groups decisions. High density ref lects Illinoiss relationship between its state and local governments, where it is difficult to determine who is in charge. Fortunately, the close knit group allows each actor to be in direct contact with decision makers. The Illinois Association of Chi efs of Police (95.604), IEMA (94.565), the Department of Public Health (94.565), and the State Fire Marshall have high closeness scores. Additionally, the gatekeepers are representative of four major emergency management disciplines: fire, EMS, medical, and police. This leads to inclusion of a wide range of service types and government levels. In Figure 417, light blue dots denote local entities. Washington The SIEC had begun c ollaboration with Washingtons nine Homeland Security Regions in 2004 to develop a planning strategy to implement a statewide interoperability system. The focus group meetings revealed a perceived negative relationship between local agencies and the state. Unfortunately, the SCIP development process in Washington was rushed because the SIEC did not begin their work until late August of 2007. On August 22nd, the SIEC conducted a SCIP w orkshop which many local, tribal, SIEC members, and local elected officials attended. During the final days before the SCIP was due, the SIEC attended several association meetings to encourage collaboration with local entities. These associations included: the Association of Washington Cities, the Washington Association of Counties, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, the 911 Advisory Committee, the Washington Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Washington State Transit Association (WASCIP) STEP 1: The SIEC gathered informati on during regular SIEC and SAW G roup meetings. STEP 2: The SIEC hel d information gathering sessions in each of the states nine Homeland Security Regions.
179 Eighty four organizations were involved in the development of Washingtons SCIP. Figure 418 suggests that while the SIEC attempted to include input from locals during the information gathering sessions, the organizations in the more densely populated group on the left had a closer relationship. This situation may have resulted in the acquisition of less information from groups outside of this dense relationship. We can see from Figu re 4 20 that the SIEC members (red) were communicating primarily with each other and the SAW Group. Members of both groups make up the cluster of organizations on the left. The group on the right represents the organizations who were consulted at last mi nute association meetings. We have no way of knowing whether these independent groups then communicated with one another. Like California, if the organizations involved had formed a cohesive group, would they have facilitated shared goals and increased s upport for the project externally? The SIEC (83, 100) had the greatest number of ties with other organizations, giving them the opportunity to influence or be influenced by others in the network. Most of the time, information flowed directly from local agencies to the SIEC (100) who was the final decision maker. The SIEC representative also served as the gatekeeper, with a betweeness score of 91.45. The Washington Military Department (25, 30.12) and the Department of Corrections (25, 30.12) also served a lesser role as gatekeepers; both are members of the SAW Group. New York New Yorks current interoperability governing agencies had not been established when the SCIP was developed. The Office for Technology (OFT) took the lead on SCIP developm ent and their program assistant, Vincent Stile, served as the coordinating manager (NY SCIP) STEP 1: The OFT began SCIP development by conducting informational meetings in each of the three FCC Regions. New York State did a thorough job of generating a distribution list and notifying all stakehol ders of the upcoming meetings. Meeting attendees were given
180 an overview of the SCIP development process by the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP) which is employed by DHS. OFT the n gathered inf ormation from stakeholders who were given an opportunity to clarify their responses to a communications questionnaire (OFT Meeting Minutes) STEP 2: The Interim Governance Board, later the SIEC and staff from the OFT drafted and developed t he SCIP. New York invited 113 stakeholders t o SCIP development sessions, though they had neglected to invite them to comment on the proposed SWN years earlier. From the structure of New York States network we can see two distinct groups. Figure 422 illustrates the close kni t links between the SWN Advisory Council members and the smaller group of SIEC members. The organizations to the right of the model show less density which implies that they have less power than the more densely populated group m embers. This situation has the potential to create an us versus them mentality. The OFT (82, 73.21), the State Police (39, 44.64) and the New York State Emergency Management Office (39, 44.64) all had the greatest number of ties with other organizat ions. Both the State Police and Emergency Management Office are members of the SWN Advisory Council. Not surprisingly, the Region 30 and Region 55 managers along with the OFT representative served as gatekeepers with betweeness scores of 36.36, 29.22, and 11.85, respectively. This data rightfully suggests that these organizations had a great deal of power over the information moving in and around the network. Perhaps most disturbing is the closeness score. We would like to see information flowing dir ectly from locals to decision makers, but in this case, information finds its shortest path equally between three organizations NYSTEC (16.04), M/A COM (16.04), and Sprint (16.04). NYSTEC is a private technology consulting firm and has advised New York State for years but M/A COM and Sprint are private telecommunications companies who are all vying to be the states communications provider. These private organizations attended all of the regional
181 meetings and their input was likely heard by decision m akers several times. Their high closeness score indicates that they served as gatekeepers by conversing directly with both loc al agencies and decision makers, a phenomenon that is not present in any other state. Which Network Structures Lea d t o Collaboration? The first hypothesis states that collaboration is more likely when states employ a combination of dense internal relationships and open external relationships or structural holes. Louisiana is considered the most successfully col labora tive state in this analysis and it utilizes a good combination of both internal density and structural holes. They have form ed a cohesive internal group which has the ability to reach outside of the organization when necessary. Texas also uses a good comb ination of density and external reach. It appears that states which strictly utilize regional councils have the most success with balancing both components. For example, Arkansas, California, and Washington did not use a strict regional structure durin g policy development and both were unable to facilitate internal density. In the case of Washington and California, we are left wondering, had they created more density, would they have been more successful? Illinoiss network is the densest and interes tingly reflects the relationship between the state and local governments. Namely, there are too many decision makers and too little control. New York has two close knit groups and a group of outsiders whose input is not considered. The lesson learned f rom successful states is that a strict regional structure must be utilized during policy development in order to find the right balance between dense internal relationships and open external relationships. However, the fact that Arkansas and Rhode Island were unable to find the right balance, leads one to believe that fulfillment of this hypothesis is desirable but not necessary for collaborative success.
182 The second hypothesis states that direct contact between participants and the decision maker increases the likelihood of collaboration. Louisiana, Arkansas, and Rhode Island funnel information from lower levels directly to decision makers. For example, locals report to regional councils who are decision makers and in some cases locals speak directly to state decision makers in Louisiana. In Rhode Island, the two RIEMA representatives are directly connected to everyone in the network. Illinois has developed a network where information only flows between decision makers because everyone in the network is a decision maker. They neglected to include opinions from outside the group. Probably most damning is New Yorks use of private companies as gatekeepers (who were in the midst of bidding on a contrac t from the state). While these organizations were not decision makers, they were able to anticipate and control information flowing through the networ k. Their role in the network le d to distrust and the e ventual downfall of the program. From this we can conclude that direct contact is immensely important t o the success of the collaborative endeavor. Finally, if there is a gatekeeper, care must be taken to ensure that that organization is trustworthy. The third hypothesis states that network structures that include a wide range of service discip lines and government levels will be more likely to collaborate. Whether it can be attributed to the diligence of the states in the analysis or some other factor, there was no evidence that any state neglected to include a variety of services and g overnment entities. Some state s were able to include a wider range than other s; for example, California, Texas, and Louisiana did a n excellent job by including a large number of local organizations. Conversely, Louisiana received input from a large number of gene ral emergency management officials and New York and Texas sought input from police.
183 Again, none of these actions are particularly alarming. No state asked police to work with police and firefighters to work with firefighters. Each made a concerted effo rt to include as many diverse groups as possible. Based on this information, we cannot conclude that fulfillment of hypothesis three will lead to collaborative success.
184 Figure 41. Network density and structural holes. Figure 42. Direct and indirect ties to the state. Figure 43. Louisiana post Katrina 2005.
185 Figure 44. Louisianas network model in 2007 after instituting a regional structure. Figure 45. Louisiana based on service type.
186 Figure 46. Arkansas by government type. Figure 47. Arkansas by service type.
187 Figure 48. Rhode Island Communications Working Group members in red. Figure 49. Organizations r eceiving an interview in b lue.
188 Figure 410. TxRC subcommittee members make up the internal portion of the network. Figure 411. Texas based on regions.
189 Figure 412. Texas based on service type. Fi gure 413. California based on government level.
190 Figure 414. Cal ifornia based on service type. Figure 415. PSRSPC members serve as gate keepers.
191 Figure 4 16. Illinois SIEC members in blue. Figure 4 17 Illinois b y government level.
192 Figure 418. Washingtons network by government type. Figure 419. Washingtons network by service type.
193 Figure 420. Washingtons SIEC membership. Figure 421. New York based on government level.
194 Figure 422. The SWN Advisory Council formed a close knit group. Figure 423. New York base d on service type.
195 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION This research examines collaboration among states and their respective local governments and asks what states can do during policy development to increase willing and fruitful collaboration with local entities. Pa rticularly, why are some states able to facilitate collaboration and others are not? I investigate collaborati on from two vantage points. First, t hough many states may need to overcome a historically negative and complicated relationship with their respec tive local governments can they utilize political tools to increase the likelihood of success? Second, h ow does the st ructure of relationships among organizations contribute to the success or failure of a policy? The research in Chapters 2 and 3 suggests that the ideal collaborative state can be achieved when states are willing to invest in policy inputs The propositions in Chapter 3 propose that the ideal state should employ a mixed hierarchical and network approach which results in the developme nt of regional and/or subject specific committees. Second, the collaborative effort will benefit from a strong leader or figurehead. Third, local governments will be more likely to collaborate with the state if there is a statewide network in place or, in the event that a network is impossible, the state has made plans to bridge or patch various networks together. Fourth, states who invest in a designated funding source and who help local governments find appropriate federal funding, will find that it is ea sier to collaborate. Fifth, states who offer professional development opportunities, especially by training locals to use the statewide network, will gain local support through education. Six, states who offer a memorandum of understanding or standard oper ating procedures to delegate responsibilities among all government levels will collaborate. Finally, as the NGA (2010) asserts, state plans or executive committees will not be seen as legitimate if they are not backed by legislative or executive action.
196 Chapter 2 and 3 also argues that political systems act on policy inputs and create either positive or negative policy outcomes. The most favorable political systems in the ideal state will bolster the states efforts to foster collaboration. First, sta tes who operate under home rule charters or who give local governments high levels of discretionary authority will be successful. Second, states with a high risk level, though beyond their control, will find that local organizations are more likely to collaborate based on a commitment to public safety. Finally, states with a large number of local units or large cities, will find it difficult to collaborate. Chapter 4 uses network techniques to map the structure that was created in each state during policy development. This chapter seeks to evaluate how the relationships between organizations, formed at the beginning of the policy process, contribute to the success or failure of a policy. Three hypotheses are stated and considered. What level of inte rnal density and external relationships result in greater collaboration? Does direct contact between participants and decision makers increase collaboration? Finally, do network structures that include a range of disciplines increase collaboration? In the following section I explain why each state was or was not able to successfully collaborate and what contributed to this success or failure. I then conclude with recommendations or keys to collaboration, based on what the data demonstrates. Loui siana In the past, Louisianas state and local governments had a difficult time collaborating. Before Katrina, the state adhered to a strictly hierarchical structure which did not garner much support from local officials. Then, everything changed Hurricane Katrina, while tragic, was the catalyst for development of numerous emergency management policies. All communications networks were compl etely decimated in the storm and l ocal and state agencies were embarrassed by the mishandling of emergency management after
197 Katrina. Collaboration between and among federal, state, and local agencies became essential. All levels of government had an unprecedented desire to come together, identify their most pressing problems, and develop a solution. Louisi ana has implemented a combination of subject specific and regional committees through the SIEC to ensure that everyone w ho wants to be involved can be. Louisianas 2007 SCIP development network includes an exceptional balance of both internal density and e xternal range. Local entities communicate directly with regional representatives who are decision makers. Some local organizations communicate directly with state decision makers and other locals are involved first hand in the decision making process. G OHSEP took the initiative to bring together state, local, and federal officials and develop a statewide plan that serves t he needs of all organizations. Both Governors Blanco and Jindal have also been supportive of LWIN and nu merous state officials have pr ovided necessary oversight and leadership such as Brant Mitchell of the SIEC. With regards to incentives, the amount of federal and state funding that has been dedicated to this project makes the decision to buyin very easy for local agencies. The Louis iana Legislature has designated recurring funding from the states general fund to pay for all of LWINs maintenance f ees. Use of LWIN is basically free for local governments; only a few agencies had to buy P25 compliant systems. This caused an increase in LWINs users and has sparked positive interest from local agencies who encoura ge the state to complete LWIN (Mitchell 2009). State and local agencies are not required to adopt LWIN but usage has become more and more popular; on average over 1,000 users ar e added each month (Radio Reference, 2010). There are no other viable multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional communications networks
198 available in Louisiana and so far, complaints about the effectiveness of LWIN have been minimal (Radio Reference 2010). Al l of these factors combine to make LWIN an attractive system for both state and local public safety agencies. Arkansas Arkansas has a small, mostly white, and largely poor population. While the homogenous nature of the state does not contribute to its s uccess, its small population does make collaboration easier because there are fewer people and populated areas to oversee. Its largest city, Little Rock, has a population of only 184,564 people. Furthermore, Arkansas has only 547 cities and counties, wit h small populations. Governor Mike Huckabee provided support for interoperable communications and the AWIN system early in the development process. This support encouraged state legislators to set aside a yearly revenue source for development of AWIN. The development of AWIN has significantly increased collaboration between the state and local governments. At first, local governments were uncertain about the system but a series of tornados and floods gave them an opportunity to utilize the states tec hnology. AWIN continues to expand its membership. There are very few reasons why local governments would not adopt AWIN because t here are n o user fees associated with usage of the system. Most local agencies must purchase P25 compliant equipment but the state provides some funding assistance and has designated federal grant money toward the purchase of radios. ADEM provides training for any state a nd local agency who uses AWIN. They also provide training to agencies that do not use AWIN but who communica te with agencies w ho are on the system. State and local agencies must sign a memorandum of understanding to use AWIN which clearly sets out the goals and responsibilities of each user. Finally, communications governing bodies in Arkansas, t he AICC and the AICEC, were created by executive order and a
199 designated funding source was established through Act 1255. This gives these organizations the power necessary to manage and enforce the goals of the program. State officials chose which organizations woul d be involved in SCIP development. While there were only a small number of organizations involved, information flowed smoothly and directly from local to state level decision makers. Their network map was not dense, which would suggest that a strong cohesi ve bond was not formed during this process. We know this is true because Arkansas had a difficult time acquiring buyin at the beginning of the process. They were able to overc ome this based on three factors: strong leadership, a perceived high risk leve l among first responders, and well managed funding sources. Rhode Island Rhode Islands size provides it with a significant advantage when it comes to collaboration. The entire state has only five counties and most government operations are already c entralized. Not surprisingly, state officials chose a traditional hierarchy as the governance structure and the policy development network reflects this choice. Rhode Islands network model shows that the primary decision makers were directly connected to everyone in the network. The dense cluster of organizations in the model are the members of the CWG and the organizations to the right are independent. The network is small and only utilizes the expertise of one group. The dense cluster and small size of the network leads us to believe that that information was limited to those organizations already in the group, al though we cannot be sure and hope that this is not the case, because most organizations were associations or unions with outside members. R hode Island established a mini system of systems approach, linking regional networks with one another to create RISCON even though the state itself was not at risk for a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The state has managed what little funding they have well by using
200 PSIC money to buy equipment for local agencies leading to increased buyin. Furthermore, the members of the CWG and former Governor Donald Carcieri provided the necessary direction, motivation, and leadership to achieve success. Texas Texas is at risk for natural disasters including fires, tornados, hurricanes, and heat waves. Furthermore, border security continues to be an issue and the large numbers of oil refineries pose the risk of a possible terrorist attack or oil spill due to negligence, leading one to believe that collaboration is necessary. Governor Rick Perry has been supportive and TxRC Chairman Peter Collins has provided leadership and direction for interoperable communications in Texas. The TxRC includes numerous local participants; anyone from a public safety organization can apply to become a member. The TxRC was established via legislative action, giving it authority to act. The TxRC is broken into subject specific committees and the state as a whole is divided into 24 regional governments which coordinate resources and provide services to the citizens of that district. Whether agencies choose to adopt the Channel Plan or not, they are required to participate in the communications planning activitie s of their regiona l council. One might argue that Texass historical distrust of a strong executive and the resulting lack of power for both cities and counties, would lead to reduced collaboration. However, the lack of collaboration is more a result of their inability to secure state funding and the diverse terrain in Texas which has made it difficult to expand the channel plan. In fact, I hesitate to put Texas in the moderate category because the state boasts the most developed regional structure of any state in this ana lysis. Their network structure includes an excellent combination of internal density and external range. To say that they are not collaborating is simply untrue; however, while it can be attributed to factors beyond their control, Texass Channel Plan is not being utilized as frequently or by as many agencies as some other state networks. Even though the state has
201 worked to include many local and state agency representatives in the policy development process, only 1,560 of the states 5,300 public safety agencies operate on the Channel Plan (TxRC). For Texas, funding and geography supersede their ability to develop a statewide network and increase collaboration. C alifornia California has the largest and one of the most diverse populations in the U.S. Furthermore, California is considered a high risk state for possible terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The federal government has designated 5 regions as UASI in California due to their high risk level. Californias large population and high risk designation make it, on one hand, less likely that they will collaborate because of the sheer number of people that need services. On the other hand, a high risk level should attract collaboration. Both Governors Grey and Schwarzenegger have provided n ominal support for interoperability efforts but neither has secured funding, which has turned out to be Californias Achilles heel. The California Legislature has not been willing, or able, to establish a dedicated funding source for emergency communica tions. Most local and state organizations have received funding only through federal grants. Recently, state and local officials were cited for mismanagement of federal funds, making the federal government less likely to be so generous in the future. Cali fornia already suffers from a lingering negative relationship with its local governments. Voter referendums, especially Proposition 13, have had unforeseen consequences such as a decrease in state aid and an increase in state unfunded mandates. This howev er, has not been the major barrier to collaboration. A lack of funding coupled with Californias diverse terrain makes it difficult to establish a statewide network. Officials elected to create a System of Systems (SoS) approach which links existing networks with one another. They believe that by
202 using existing networks, rather than replacing them, local agencies will be more likely to buyin to the states plan, but the lack of funding has made it impossible to start implementation. What Californias pu blic safety officials do have is pride as innovators in the field of emergency management. California developed many of the programs that the federal government has now adopted. Along those same lines, no one person has contributed more than any other to emergency communications in California. Rather, many people from both state and local organizations have contributed to Californias success over time. Californias network structure included a large number of structural holes which suggests that organi zations were participating but were not forming a cohesive bond. After analyzing the network used for SCIP de velopment, the question remains: if more local governments had been included in the development of the SCIP or had there been more communication between them, would they have been able to form a stronger coalition, lobby the legislature, and win support for their project? Illinois Two thirds of local governments in Illinois operate under home rule charters because of an amendment to the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The citizens of Illinois and even the Illinois Supreme Court are supporters of home rule and in many cases the state has very little authority to act against local governments. While increased discretion is generally seen as a benefit, i t has become an obstacle in Illinois. Increased power has made it difficult for local governments to collaborate because they feel that they must constantly defend their authority. Furthermore, Illinois has more local g overnments than any other state, over 6,700. The sheer number of local entities has made it necessary for the state to create support offices that serve local governments. SCIP development was a closed process, very few local agencies had a say in SCIP development. Many members of the ST ARCOM 21 Oversight Committee and SIEC are also
203 from state agencies or populous regions. The state utilizes a combination leveraged and traditional governance structure which does not include the decentralized measures necessary for collaboration. This crea ted a development network that was predictably dense, with very few links to organizations or actors outside of the network. Interestingly, Illinois network reflects the reality of state a nd local relations in the state, many actors seeking power and very little indication of who exactly is in charge. We found in Chapter 3 that most states do not necessarily need formal authority for their governing bodies to be successful. However, states in Illinois position, with many local entities and confusion over which organization is in control, might prudently consider legislative or executive authority. The SIEC is governed through bylaws which limit its power. A charter would allow them to set their own rules and exercise more power. While Illinois has used state and federal grant funding to buy STARCOM 21 radios for some state and local public safety providers, there are still many organizations who must buy their own equipment if they want to participate. At $4,000 to $6,000 a radio, this is not an ine xpensive task. STARCOM 21 users must also sign an agreement administered by Motorola and the STARCOM 21 Oversight Committee before they can begin use. This is common in all states with a statewide network; however, a $53 fee per month per radio is uncomm on. STARCOM 21 offers reliable coverage and is maintained by a reputable telecommunications company; however, there are some issues with Motorola and the lack of competition surrounding its contract with the state. Illinois success can be attributed to t he development of a statewide network and the designation as a high risk state. However, the state could be more successful if it were not for the confusing number of local entities and lack of leadership. Also, while STARCOM is the major
204 communications ne twork in operatio n throughout the state, there are also many other discipline specific networks being used by the various public safety agencies. The state has not been able to encourage autonomous and powerful local governments to adopt the statewide net work. Washington Washington State is considered a moderate risk state by the federal government. It is home to several critical infrastructure areas including federal, military and port assets. The state also hosts many large manufacturing com panies (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) which provide goods and services to the military and to private airlines. Finally, they are at risk for such major disasters as earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. Washington State has adopted a regional approach w ith subject specific committees and an SIEC; however, local governments are not well represented on the SIEC. Due to time constraints, the SIEC made most of their decisions by consulting a close knit group. This resulted in a network structure that is den sely populated on one side, with numerous structural holes on the other. In this case, one might argue that there are too many structural holes making it difficult for independent groups to communication with one another. Like California, if the organizat ions involved had formed a more cohesive group, would they have been able to increase outside support for the project? Washington officials have made use of federal funding but have received very little state support or funding for communications rel ated projects. Washington has contributed far less funding to interoperable communications than other states in this analysis. The only states who have contributed less, California and Texas, have received a greater amount of federal funding. With regard to technology, the diverse terrain in Washington makes it difficult to patch even existing networks. The state plans to develop a multiple systems model much like Californias SoS but has not yet been able to secure the necessary funding to do so.
205 Was hingtons pol itical systems would at first glance appear to be its strength. Unfortunately, like Illinois, too much of a good thing (local autonomy) can backfire and result in nothing actually being accomplished. Washington has in general taken more of a carrot versus a stick approach. The state has adopted a relaxed form of home rule which also does not lend itself to greater control over local communications systems. In fact, the SCIP continually mentions that the state was by no means trying to preem pt t he power of local governments. The SIEC was established through legislative action but serves only as a subcommittee of the Information Services Board. This creates a problem because the SIEC provides Washingtons only form of leadership on emergency communications issues though it has very little power to act. In most states, this lack of control might not matter, but in a state where relaxed home rule has resulted in local governments who feel that their power is being usurped whenever the state asks them to complete a joint project, increased control might be necessary. New York New York State, especiall y the city, is considered a t high risk for terrorist attacks and cold weather related natural disasters. Furthermore, t he state hosts many lar ge events and is home to numerous critical infrastructure sites, which also add to the potential for terrorist activity. This fact alone should lead to collaboration. New Yorks Constitution allows home rule for counties and cities, but home rule is on ly symbolic. The New York Supreme Court ruled that state doctrine preempts home rule so whatever power the state gives, it could just as easily take away. Furthermore, the relationship between the state and the city is precarious. Initially, New York had plans to develop a SWN but state officials proceeded to develop the network without input from local practitioners. At that point, the legislature stepped in and formed the SWN Advisory Council which they hoped would provide outreach to local
206 governments but the same problems persisted. Motorola and M/A COM fought over contract bids and were accused of secret lobbying efforts. After years of subpar results, the contract with M/A COM was dissolved. The original governance structure was confusing for local officials. This structure is in the process of consolidation and a new governance structure has not been completely decided upon. No one individual or group has provided the necessary leadership to bring together state and local officials. Perhaps t he most disturbing revelation about New Yorks SCIP development network was the role that private organizations played in the decision making process. Both Sprint and M/A COM were considered gatekeepers, controlling information flowing in and through the organization. This phenomenon was unique to New York; no other state utilized private company input to this extent during policy development. Considering the amount of funding that New York State had pledged to develop the SWN ($500 million $2 billi on), and the amount that the federal government has awarded to New York in grants, one might expect seamless collaboration. Unfortunately, there are very few incentives for local governments to work with the state. Program implementation by the state has proven to be expensive and ineffective. The state has, over time, shown local officials that they cannot be trusted. From symbolic home rule to scandal, the state has a challenging path to overcome in order to achieve successful collaboration. Keys to Successful Collaboration: Policy Inputs and Political Systems The top two most successful collaborative states, Louisiana and Arkansas incorporated each policy input into the final SCIP This leads me to conclude that states that incorporate each input are more likely to be successful. Nevertheless, other states also experienced varying levels
207 of success and did not necessarily include all inputs. Therefore, while inclusion of each input is advisable, it is not absolutely necessary. A regional and/or s ubject specific, decentralized, governance model is not necessary. Both successful and unsuccessful states utilized this structure. Louisiana and Arkansas used this structure and did well. Rhode Island, because of its small size, used a more traditional hierarchy. New York used, or at least claimed to use, a regional and subject specific approach, but it did not result in successful collaboration because of outside factors. A designated state funding source and federal funding is helpful but diligent management and use of funding sources determines success. For example, a lack of funding hurt California and Washington and paralyzed their programs. High levels of federal and state funding were the key to Louisianas success. Minimal funding was manage d well in Arkansas and Rhode Island. New York devoted the greatest amount of funding and was still unable to be successful. Legislative or executive action, bolstering a statewide plan or governing board, also does not necessarily translate into increased collaboration. Some states, such as Texas, had strong governing boards and did not need formal authority. Other states, such as Washington and Illinois, have created a relaxed relationship with their local governments. In this case, increased authority would be a useful tool. Two policy inputs were identified as ne cessary for any state: leadership and a statewide network. Strong leaders, whether gubernatorial or simply members of a governing board, could facilitate buy in and gather support from state legislators. A statewide network gave local officials something tangible that they could work toward that would link all organizations and require them to work together. Patching disparate networks worked moderately well for some states but did not create enough of an incentive for others. Professional development through
208 training and standardized SOPs assisted collaboration but was strongly correlated with use of a statewide network. With regards to political systems, high levels of discretiona ry authority backfired in some states and resulted in nothing being accomplished (Illinois and Washington). In some cases, relaxed relationships did not matter because an outside, uncontrollable factor was contributing to a negative relationship, as was t he case with California. Still, some states granted their local governments home rule but it was only symbolic, as was the case with New York. Overall, states who granted their local governments a moderate level of authority, some home rule with set stan dards for control were most successful. Risk level proves that factors that might be considered motivation in one state do not translate into collaboration in another. Louisiana used Katrina as a catalyst while New York has not been able to use 9/11 a s a medium for increased collaboration. Rhode Island is not at risk for terrorist attacks or natural disasters but officials were concerned about the response to Katrina and 9/11 and did not want this to happen in their state. Finally, state demographics can make collaboration difficult but overcoming this barrier depends on how these factors are handled. Illinois has the largest number of local entities and was unable to overcome the confusion. In contrast, Texas has the largest number of counties and had formed regional councils years before to reach out and integrate local officials into the decision making process. Keys to Successful Collaboration: Networks. The first hypothesis states that collaboration is more likely when states employ a combination of dense internal relationships and open external relationships or structural holes. States who strictly utilize regional councils during policy development have the most success
209 balancing both components. Inclusion of both types of relationships is how ever, desirable but not necessary. Several successful states were unable to find the right balance. The second hypothesis states that direct contact between participants and the decision maker increases the likelihood of collaboration. The importance of this assertion is evident because all successful states incorporated direct contact with decision makers and unsuccessful states did not. From this we can conclude that direct contact is immensely important to the success of the collaborative endeavor. The third hypothesis states that network structures that include a wide range of service disciplines and government levels will be more likely to collaborate. Whether it can be attributed to the diligence of the states in the analysis or some other factor, there was no evidence that any state neglected to include a variety of services and government entities. Each made an effort to include as many diverse groups as possible. Based on this information, we cannot conclude that fulfillment of hypothesis three will necessarily lead to collaborative success. Future Research Organizational mapping has become more common throughout the public and private sector because it provides a means for researchers and ultimately public administrators to f ocus on patterns of relationships that have caused the success or failure of a policy or program. In the case of emergency communication, organizational mapping can help identify where weaknesses in communication occur so that issues can be resolved and p ublic safety improved. The next step in this research will be to map an actual communications network and the State of Florida, who boasts high levels of collaboration and organization, provides an excellent starting point. Florida operates within a regi onal governance structure. The state is split into seven Regional Domestic Security Task Forces (RDSTF) that deal with general emergency management issues. The regional groups all have interoperable communications committees
210 consisting of radio system st aff in that region (FIN, 2009). These groups meet regularly, build regional relationships, and contribute to the statewide discussion on interoperability. The focus on relations, and the patterns of relations, requires a set of methods and analytic concepts that are distinct from the methods of traditional data analysis (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). I will create a survey to distribute to actors within the interoperable network. Network analysis calls for a particular type of survey, one that focuses on the existence or lack of personal and professional relationships. Each question on the survey will be accompanied by a list of names of actors involved in the emergency communications network. Respondents will be asked to list the frequency with which they communicate with specific people on specific issues. Respondents will also be given the chance to specify whether it was a specific person giving information or an organization as a whole. Implications for Federalism and Localism This research serv ed as an assessment of the larger issues of modern federalism. In particular, and for many states in this analysis, the history of state and local relations began to manifest during the development of each states interoperability policy. Something as bas ic as public safety, which should have been a noncontroversial issue proved to be divisive and challenging for some states. Illinois and Washington continued to follow their historically permissive relationship with their local governments, which result ed in uncertainty over who should be held accountable and who was in control California was un able to overcome its history of unfunded mandates and form a strong enough bond with its local governments to lobby legislators for increased support New York could not overcome its city versus the state mentality which led to even more distrust between these two entities; the state remains hostile and the city is unreceptively autonomous.
211 Perhaps most interesting is what this research suggests about the futur e of public private relationships and the conflict that can arise between one en tity whose responsibility is to serve the public and the other, whose mission is to turn a profit. The states who were most able to achieve their goals and who were largely una ffected by controversy, were the states whose communications network was owned by the state rather than a private telecommunications company. Public private partnerships are common and will continue to increase as government turns to contractors to provide services. This research speaks to the necessity of accountability measures to ensure that the publics best interest is constantly considered. For example, Illinois was plagued by rumors that Motorolas considerable political clout played a role in cont inuously increasing monthly user fees; resulting in a decrease in local trust and buyin. In New York, private companies were present at local stakeholder meetings and played a considerable role in the decision making process. Their presence convinced those in power to make poor choices and further alienate local officials. Private involvement in government delivery of services is inevitable and potentially desirable. However, those in power, and especially those who tout the need for government accou ntability should not neglect the importance of holding private contractors accountable when they also utilize taxpayer money. Furthermore, states and local governments must seek out new and innovative methods for improving their working relationships. The federal government will continue to delegate unfunded mandates and these will require state s to work with locals to produce controversial joint policies. The responsibility often falls on the state to improve relationships. With this in mind, s tates should focus on using available political tools as collaborative inputs during policy development increasing direct communication with local officials, and setting an example by maintaining ethical standards
212 Why I chose this research topic? W hen I worked in the executive branch I noticed that states were having a difficult time obtaining sensitive information from the federal government because state officials did not have security clearances. I saw how frustrating this was for emergency man agement officials and I knew that local government officials must be feeling the same frustration from both the federal government and their state. I believe that understanding why local governments decide to willingly join collaborative efforts is fundam ental to increasing public safety. I also believe that I can aid state and local leaders in their pursuit of unique solutions to address a wide variety of complicated issues by uncovering why and under what conditions government officials will make the de cision to collaborate.
213 APPENDIX A INTEROPERABILITY BAC KGROUND AND TERMINOL OGY There are several barriers to effective interoperable communication. Clearly, agencies have different procedures, missions, and protocols, but they also operate on different radio frequencies. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to function and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges (GAO 2007). Varied radio frequencies have created obstacles to effect ive communication and, thus, have created the need for greater collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies. First responders typically use land mobile radio systems to communicate during emergency situations (GAO 2007). Land mobile radio systems include handheld portable radios, mobile radios, base stations and repeaters. Handheld portable radios are typically carried by public safety personnel and tend to have a limited transmission range. Mobile radios are located in vehicles and use the vehicles power supply and larger antenna, providing a greater transmission range than handheld portable radios (GAO 2007). Base station radios have the most powerful transmissions and are located at public service points such as a dispatch cent er. First responder networks connect handheld portable radios and land mobile radios to the same communication systems. Repeaters increase the communication range of handheld portable radios, land mobile radios, and base stations by retransmitting radio s ignals (GAO 2007). Figure A 1. Basic components of a land mobile radio communications system.
214 Each communications link uniquely occupies a specific frequency or set of frequencies for as long as information is being transmitted (GAO 2007). Radio s pectrums are used for a variety of communication types including television and AM/FM radio. Radio spectrums are a fixed and limited resource (GAO 2007). Not every frequency band is available for emergency management agencies. FM radio stations transm it in a frequency band between 88 megahertz and 108 megahertz. AM radio stations transmit between 535 and 1700 kilohertz. Figure A 2. Public safety agency radio frequency bands Public safety communications are typically transmitted in the very high frequency (VHF) and ultra high frequency ranges (UHF). VHF signals are useful in suburban and rural areas because they travel farther than UHF signals. However, UHF signals are able to penetrate buildings, making them ideal for dense urban areas (GAO 2007). The National Telecommunications and Information Administration manage the frequencies used by federal agencies and the Federal Communications Commission manages state and local frequencies. Radio systems can be either conventional or trunked (GAO 2007). Conventional radio systems have dedicated frequencies also referred to as channels assigned to individual groups of users. When a user makes a call, other members of the group cannot use the channel until the call is over (GAO 2007). Trunked systems allot channels for use by multiple individuals. When
215 a call is made an available channel is automatically selected from the pool of channels, leaving the remaining channels available for others. Trunked systems are more complex but they reduce congestion by opening additional communication channels (GAO 2007). The variation in radio frequencies across agencies has led to incompatible communication systems and; therefore, has hampered the ability of agencies to collaborate. The incompatibility of many communications systems can be blamed on the myriad of manufacturers who produce and sell incompatible products (GAO 2007). However, incompatibility also stems from changes in frequency bands over time. Over time agencies were assigned higher frequ encies as lower frequencies became more congested. Unfortunately, older equipment cannot transmit and receive all frequency bands. Differences in equipment and frequency bands make it difficult for first responders to communicate with other first respond ers in different jurisdictions because technology was purchased without regard for interoperability (GAO 2007). Agencies have developed several technical approaches for improving interoperable communications across jurisdictions. Some of these techniques include swapping radios, patching incompatible radio systems together, developing mutual aid channels, and internet based systems. Some agencies swap radios when they have a supply of extra radios. They can then lend extra radios to first responders in jurisdictions where communications are incompatible with their own. The advantage to this system is that no extra funding is needed to by new radios, however, this approach requires high levels of management and coordination to lend the radios and then re trieve them when the incident has been resolved (GAO 2007). Patching allows two incompatible radio systems to be connected by a central switchboard; translating one signal so that it can be received by the other (GAO 2007). The advantage of this system is that jurisdictions can use existing systems (GAO 2007).
216 APPENDIX B STATEWIDE COMMUNICAT IONS INTEROPERABILIT Y PLAN CRITERIA SAFECOM developed a set of criteria to assist states in developing the SCIP (DHS 2007). The criteria were developed with input from state and local officials. Individual SCIPs cannot be approved until all criteria are addressed. The following criteria are evaluated in this research project through content analysis of SCIPs and converted into data for dependent and independent variables. The criteria are taken directly from DHS documents. Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Criteria for Statewide Interoperability Strategic Plans. 2007. www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1304_fy2007.htm 1.1 Provide an overview and background information on the state and its regions. Include geographic and demographic information. 1.2 List all agencies and organizations that participated in developing the plan. 1.3 Each state will have a full time interoperability coordinator; unaffiliated with any particular agency or group. 1.4 Describe the interoperability environment of the current emergency response effo rt. 2.1 Describe the strategic vision, goals, and objectives for improving emergency response interagency wireless communications statewide. 3.1 Describe the method by which multi jurisdictional input was provided from all regions. 3.2 Define the process for continuing to have local input and for building local support. 4.1 Identify the executive or legislative authority for the governing body. 4.2 Provide an overview of the governance structure that will oversee development and implementation of th e plan. Illustrate how it is representative of all the relevant emergency response disciplines and regions in the state. 4.4 Identify the members of the governing body and its committees.
217 4.6 Describe multi jurisdictional agreements needed for sha ring resources. 5.1 Include a statewide technology assessment. This should include types of radio systems, data and incident management systems, manufacturer, and frequency. 6.1 Include an assessment of current local, regional, and state operating proce dures. 6.2 Define the process by which the state, regions, and localities will develop, manage, maintain, upgrade, and communicate standard operating procedures. 6.3 Identify the agencies included in the development of the SOPs and the ag encies expected to comply with the SOPs. 7.1 Define how the state will develop, manage, maintain, and upgrade, or coordinate statewide training programs. 7.2 Describe the process for offering and requiring training and exercises as well as any cert ification that will be needed. 7.3 Explain how the process ensures that the training is cross disciplinary. 9.1 Indentify committed sources of funding or the process for identifying and securing short and long term funding. 10.4 Describe the roles and opportunities for involvement of all agencies in the implementation of the statewide plan. 10.7 Describe critical success factors for implementation of the plan.
218 APPENDIX C STATE INFORMATION TABLES Table C 1. Indicating whether the state has UASI regions. UASI Arkansas No, Little Rock has been designated the states only UASI area California 5 in total; two Tier 1 (Los Angeles and the Bay Area) and three Tier 2 (Anaheim, Sacramento, and San Diego) Illinois Yes, one Tier 1 (Chicago Area) Louis iana Yes, two Tier 2 UASI (New Orleans and Baton Rouge) New York 5 in total; one Tier 1 (New York City) and four Tier 2 (Rochester, Buffalo, Albany, Syracuse) Rhode Island 1 Tier 2 UASI (Providence and surrounding areas) Texas 5 in total; two Tier I Ur ban Area (Houston and Dallas Ft. Worth Arlington ) and 3 Tier II Urban Areas ( Austin, El Paso, and San Anto nio ) Washington Yes, two Tier 2 UASI (Seattle and Portland/Vancouver) Table C 2. US Census Bureau 2009 population estimates. Largest cit y Population Arkansas Little Rock 191,930 California Los Angeles 4,065,585 Illinois Chicago 2,851,268 Louisiana New Orleans 354,850 New York New York City 8,391,881 Rhode Island Providence 626,150 Texas Houston 2,257,926 Washington Seattle 617 ,334 Table C 3. Grant totals by state from 2006 to 2010 in millions. Also, total expenditures per person based on Census Bureau projections for 2009. Sources FEMA, DHS, and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (Granted, not all money went towards interoperable communications; some went to local agencies to put toward their public safety needs. If UASI money is removed, some states spend less than Arkansas on emergency communications.) Arkansas California Illinois Louisiana N ew York Texas Washington PSIC $11.17 $94 M $36.4 M $19.67 M $60.7 M $65 M $19.2 M IECGP $646,172 $11.5 M $3.9 M $1.8 M $13.3 M $7.26 M $2.2 M UASI $0 $724.88M $252.06M $35.63M $739.7M $307.92 $51.94M TOTAL $12.3M $830.38M $292.36M $57.1M $813.7M $380 .18M $73.34 Expend P/P $4,257 $22,466 $22,646 $12,711 $41,640 $15,341 $11,005
219 Table C 4. Local discretionary authority. Scale is 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the greatest degree of freedom from state control and 5 indicating the smallest degree of freedom. Source: Zimmerman 1995. Average City Discretionary Authority Average County Discretionary Authority Arkansas 3.125 2.125 California 2.0 3.0 Illinois 1.8 3.0 Louisiana 1.625 2.375 New York 3.125 3.125 Rhode Island Texas 1.175 4.075 Washington 2 .575 3.575
220 LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, Paul. 2001. Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organizational Science 12 (2): 215 34. Agranoff, Robert. 2006. Inside collaborative networks: Ten less ons for public managers. Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 5665. Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 1998. Multi network management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (1): 6791. Alexander, Ernest. 1995. How organizations act together: Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach. Anderson, William. 1946. Federalism and intergovernmental relations: A budget of suggestions for research. Chicago, IL: Public Administration Service. Atkins vs. Kansas 191 U.S. 207 (1903). Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Baker, Riley. 1982. Intergovernmental relations. In Louisiana politics: Festival in a labyrinth ed. James Bolner, 7895. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Univ. Press. Banovetz, James, and Thomas Kelty. 1986. Illinois home rule and taxation: A new approach to local government enabling authority. N orthern Illinois University Law Review 8:19871988. Barbour, Elisa. 2007. State local fiscal conflicts in California: From proposition 13 to pr oposition 1a. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings. Beder, Hal. 1984. Interorganizational cooperation: Why and how? In Realizing the potential of intergovernmental cooperation, ed. Hal Beder, 323. Sa n Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Bentley, Emily. 2004. Interstate cooperation in homeland security: Emergency management standards and accreditation. Spectrum: The Journal of State Government Fall 2004 Edition. http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/spec_fa04InterstateCooperation.pdf (accessed May 10, 2009). Birkland, Thomas. 2005. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public poli cy making Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
221 Blanco, Kathleen Babineaux. 2005. Quote from : US House Select Committee. Hearing to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. Hurri cane Katrina: Preparedness and r esponse by the State of Louisiana 12/14/05. LexisNexis Congressional (accessed July 14, 2010). Blair, Diane. 1988. Arkansas politics and government: Do the people rule? Lincoln, NE: Univ. of Nebraska Press. Borgatti, Stephen, and Pacey Foster. 2003. The network paradigm i n organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management 29 (6): 991 1013. Borgatti, Stephen, Ajay Mehra, Daniel Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:892894. Boyd, Donald. 2006. P olitical conflict and intergovernmental fiscal relations. In Governing New York State eds. Robert Pecorella and Jeffrey Stonecash, 27 48. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press. Brass, Daniel. 1985. Mens and womens networks: A study of intera ction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal 28 (2): 327 343. Burt, Roger. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Cahn, Matthew, H. Eric Schockman, and Davi d Shafie. 2001. Rethinking California: Politics and policy in the golden state Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall. California Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee and the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee. 2007. California Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Sacramento, CA: CalSIEC. Chatman, Jennifer, Jeffrey Polzer, Sigal Barsade, and Margaret Neale. 1998. B eing different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (4): 749780. Chisholm, Donald. 1989. Coordination without hierarchy: Informal structures in multi organizational systems. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press. Chubb, John E. 1991. How relevant is competition to government policymaking? In Competition among states and local governments eds. Daphne Kenyon and John Kincaid, 5763. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. City of Clinton vs. Cedar Rapids and Missouri Railroad C ompany 24 Iowa 455 (1868). City of Trenton vs. New Jersey. 262 U.S. 182 (1923).
222 Clayton, Cornell, Lance LeLoup, and Nicholas Lovrich. 2004. Washington state government and politics Pullman, WA: Washington State Univ. Press. Cohen, Michael, James Mar ch, and Johan Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 125. Collier, D, and J. Mahoney. 1996. Insights and pitfalls: Selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics 49 (1): 56 91. Collins, Peter. 2008. Quote from: Texas House Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response. Hearing to investigate the state of emergency communications along the Texas border Chief Information Officer for City of Austin Collins T estifies on CrossBorder Interoperability 2/19/08. LexisNexis Academic (accessed July 14, 2010). Corwin, Edward. 1937. National state cooperation its present possibilities. Yale Law Journal 46:599633. Cummings, L.L., and Philip Bromiley. 1996. T he organizational trust inventory. In Trust in organizations eds. Roderick Kramer and Tom Tyler, 302330. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Department of Information Systems and the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. 2007. Arkansas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Little Rock, AR: DIS. Doherty, Seth. 2010. The legislature strikes back: Citizen initiatives in Washington State. State of Elections February 10, 2010. http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2010/02/22/the legislature fights back citizen initiatives in washingtonstate/ (accessed August 13, 2010). Dye, Thomas. 1966. Politics, economics, and the public: Policy outcomes in the American states Chicago, IL: Rand, McNally & Company. Dye, Thomas R., and Thomas L. Hurley. 1978. The responsiveness of federal and state governments to urban problems. Journal of Politics 40:196 207. Easton, David. 1957. An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics 9 (3): 383 400. Eckstein, H. 1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Handbook of political science eds. F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby, 3037. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Eisinger, Peter. 2006. Imperfect federalism: The intergovernmental partnership for homeland security. Public Administration Review 66 (4): 537545. Elazar, Daniel, Bruce Carroll, Lester Levine, and Douglas St. Angelo.1969. Cooperation and conflict Itsaca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
223 Elazar, Daniel J. 1991. Cooperative federalism. In Competition among states and local governments eds. Daphne Kenyon and John Kincaid, 6586. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press. Engstrom, Richard. 1982. Municip al government. In Louisiana politics: Festival in a labyrinth, ed. James Bolner, 234254. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Univ. Press. Falkenrath, Richard. 2000. The problems of preparedness: Challenges facing the US domestic preparedness program BCSI A Discussion Paper 200028, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2770/ problems_of_preparedness.html (accessed August 21, 2009). Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant Programs Directorate and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2008. Public safety interoperable communications grant program improving interope rable communications nationwide: Overview of initial state and territory investments. Washington, DC: FEMA and NTIA. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/psic/ (accessed July 26, 2010). Fitz, John, David Halpin, and Sally Power. 1994. Implementation research and education policy: practice and prospects. British Journal of Educational Studies 42:5368. Frederickson, H.G., and T. LaPorte. 2002. Airport security, high reliability, and the problem of rationality. Public Admi nistration Review 66:3343. George, A.L. 1979. Case studies and theory development: The method of structured, focused, comparison. In Diplomacy: New approaches in history, theory, and policy ed. P.G. Lauren, 102 127. New York, NY: Free Press. Gers ton, Larry, and Terry Christensen. 2003. California politics and government: A practical approach. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth. Goldsmith, Stephen, and William Eggers. 2004. Governing by network Washington, DC: Brookings. Gould, Roger, and Rober to Fernandez. 1989. Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology 19:88126. Gove, Samuel, and James Nowlan. 1996. Illinois politics and government: The expanding metropolitan frontier Linc oln, NE: Univ. of Nebraska Press. Granovetter, Mark. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1:201 233. Gray, Barbara. 1985. Conditions facilitating intergovernmental collaboration. Human Relations 38 (10): 911 936.
224 Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gray, Barbara, and Donna Wood. 1991. Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (1): 322. Grodzins, Morton and Daniel Elazar. 1966. The American system: A new view of government in the United States Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Hansen, M. T., Podolny, J. M., and J. Pfeffer. 2000. So many ties, so little time: A task contingency perspective on the value of social capital in organizations. Working paper No. 00029, Harvard Business School, Harvard University. http://www.emeraldin s ight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1781207&show=abstract (accessed August 10, 2010). Hevesi, Alan. 2005. SWN problems must be addressed Letter to Governor Pataki. http://w ww.osc.state.ny.us/reports/procurement/wirelessnetwork.pdf (accessed August, 10, 2010). Himmleman, Arthur. 1996. On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: From social service to social justice. In Creating collaborative advantage e d. Chris Huxham, 3447. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hirschman, Albert. 1982. Rival interpretations of market society: Civilizing, destructive, or feeble? Journal of Economic Literature 20 (4): 14631484. Hjern, B., K. Hanf, and D. Porter.1978. Local networks of manpower training in the FRG and Sweden. In Interorganizational policymaking: Limits to coordination and central control eds. K. Hanf and Fritz Scharpf, 285301. London, UK: Sage. Huxham, Chris, and David McDonald. 1992. Introducing collaborative advantage: Achieving interorganizational effectiveness through meta strategy. Management Decision 30 (3): 5056. Hyink, Bernard, and David Provost. 1998. Politics and government in California. New York NY: Longman, Inc. Illinois Government News Network, Budget Press Office. 2007a. Ill. governor announces nearly $18 million in com munications grants 12/10/07. http://www.firegrantshelp.com/officialannouncements/327059Ill governor announces nearly 18million in communications grants/ (accessed October 23, 2010). Illinois Government News Network, Governors Press Office. 2007b. Governor Blagojevich announces distribution of STARCOM21 radios to colleges for states campus security effort9/13/07. http://www.illinois.gov/pressreleases/ShowP ressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=2 &RecNum=6252 ( accessed October 23, 2010).
225 Illinois Terrorism Task Force. 2008. Illinois Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Springfield, IL: ITTF Jackson, Donny. 2007. Report: N.Y. system costs much higher. Urge nt Communications January 1, 2007. http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_report_ny_system/ (accessed October 1, 2010). Jackson, Donny. 2009. Spanos out as New York SWN program director. Urgent Communications. January 30, 2009, http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/ news/spanos swn director out 0130 (accessed December 12, 2010). Jackson, Donny. 2010. Grant announcements disappoint many 700 mhz waiver jurisdictions. Urgent Communications September, 18 2010. http://urgentcomm.com/policy_ and_law/commentary/waiver jurisdiction grant disappointment 20100928/ (accessed October 1, 2010). Janis, Irving. 1982. Groupthink Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, Stephen. 1967. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Pyschometrika 32 (3): 241 254. Jones, Eugene, Joe Ericson, Lyle Brown, and Robert Trotter. 1983. Practicing Texas politics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Kaarbo, Juliet, and Ryan Beasley. 1999. A practical guide to the comparative case study method in political. Psychology. Political Psychology 20 (2): 369391. Kettl, Donald. 2003. Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security. American Review of Public Administration 33 (3): 253277. Key, V.O. 1937. The administration of federal g rants to the states Chicago, IL: Public Administration Service. Kincaid, John. 1991. The competitive challenge to cooperative federalism: A theory of federal democracy. In Competition among states and local governments eds. Daphne Kenyon and John Ki ncaid, 87111. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Knoke, David. 1982. Network analysis London: Sage Publications. Kraemer, Richard, Charldean Newell, and David Prindle. 2009. Texas politics. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Krebs, Valdis. 1996. Managing core competencies of the corporation. Washington, DC: The Advisory Board Company. Laumann, Edward, and David Knoke. 1987. The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains Madison, WI. Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
226 Lewis, James. 2001. Working together: Twelve principles for achieving excellence in managing projects, teams, and organizations New York NY: McGraw Hill. Light, Paul. 1997. The tides of reform. Making government work 19451995. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Pr ess. Lijphart, A. 1975. The comparable case strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies 8:158 177. Lin, Judy. 2009. Schwarzenegger: Higher taxes will be vetoed Associated Press. June 17, 2009. http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009 0617/politics city countygovernment/schwarzenegger higher taxeswillbe vetoed (accessed August 10, 2010). Lin, Nan. 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology 29 (6): 785 795. Linden, Russell. 2002. Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Liotta, Angela. 2009. New Yo rk State hosts first public safety interoperability symposium 7/1/10. New York: Office of the Governor, Press Release. http://readme.readmedia.com/New York State Hosts First Public Safety Interoperability Symposium with Focus onGovernance/865505 (accessed December 12, 2010). Liotta, Angela. 2010. FCC grants conditional approval of New York States interoperable public safety waiver 5/13/10. New York: Office of the Governor, Press Release. http://www.cio.ny.gov/press/news/0513101.htm (accessed December 12, 2010). Liotta, Angela. 2010. Statewide Wir eless Network Advisory Council holds final meeting 3/25/10. New York: Office of the Governor, Press Release. http://www.cio.ny.gov/assets/ documents/20100325_FinalCouncilMeetingMarch25.pdf ( accessed August 10, 2010). Lipsky, M. 1971. Street level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly 6:391409. Litterer, Joseph A. 1969. Organizations: Structure and behavior. New York N Y : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, ACIR. 2003. A study of the relationship between Louisiana state and local government in the funding and delivery of services to its citizens. http://senate.legis.state.la.us/ACIR/Archives.asp (accessed October 23, 2010). Louisiana State Interoperability Executive Committee. 2008. Louisiana Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Baton Rouge, LA: LASCIP.
227 March, James, and Johan Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics New York NY : Free Press. Marsden, Peter. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual Reviews of Sociology 16:435463. Mattessich, Paul, and Barbara Monsey. 1992. Collaboration: What makes it work? St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Malykhina Elena, and J. Nicholas Hoover 2006. Hurricane prone states face big communication problems this storm season. Information Week June 26, 2006. http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID =189600678 (accessed August 10, 2010). McCaffrey, David, Sue Faerman, and David Hart. 1995. The appeal and difficulties of participa tive systems. Organizational Science 6 (6): 603 627. McGuire, Therese. 1991. Federal aid to states and localities and the appropriate competitive framework. In Competition among states and local governments eds. Daphne Kenyon and John Kincaid, 153164 Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. McKinsey & Company. 2002. Increasing FDNYs Preparedness. New York: McKinsey & Company. www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html (accessed March 11, 2009). McPherson, Miller, Lynn SmithLovin, and James Cook. 1987. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:425444. Mitchell, Brant. 2009. Bi Annual Report on interoperability Baton Rouge, LA: GOHSEP. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. (n.d.). County forms of government. Washington, DC: MRSCW. http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/Governance/locgov12.aspx#3 (accessed August 13, 2010). Nathan, Richard, and John Lago. 1990. Intergovernmental fiscal roles and relations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 509:36 47. National Association of Counties. 2004. Dillons rule or not? Washington, DC: NAC. Research Brief. http://www.naco.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentID=11770 (accessed August 25, 2009). National Governors Association. 2009a. 2008 State homeland security directors survey. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/ 0903HSASURVEY.PDF (accessed August 30, 2009).
228 National Gover nors Association. 2009b. Advancing public safety interoperable communications: Recent state actions Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0906AD VANCINGPUBLICSAFETY.PDF (accessed August 30, 2009). National Governors Association. 2010. Approaches for statewide interoperable communications governance Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices. http://www.nga.org/Files/ pdf/1004INTEROPCOM.PDF (accessed May 2, 2010). National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (n.d.). PSIC: Public safety interoperable communications Washington, DC: NTIA. www.ntia.doc.gov/ psic/awardsmap .html (accessed August 20, 2009). New York State Office of the Governor, Office of the Press Secretary. 2010. Governor Paterson announces Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services appointment 7/1/20 http://www.security.state.ny.us/press.php (accessed July 20, 2010). New York Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee and the Office for Technology. 2009. N ew York Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Albany, NY: NYSIEC. Office of the Governor of California, Office of the Press Secretary. 2010a. Governor Schwarzenegger participates in Golden Guardian 5/19/10. http://gov.ca.gov/ index.php?/speech/15203/ (accessed August 10, 2010). Office of the Governor of California, Office of the Press Secretary. 2010b. Governor Schwarzenegger launches first in the nation Disaster Corps 6/25/10. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/speech/15428/ (accessed August 10, 2010). Office of the Governor of Texas, Press Office. 2006. Governor Perry: Homeland security grants to focus on technology needs 8/ 16/06. LexisNexis Academic (accessed July 14, 2010). Ostrom, Elinor. 1991. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. OToole, Laurence. 1996. Rational choice and the public mana gement of inter organizational networks. In The state of public management eds. Donald Kettl and Brinton Milward, 241266. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. OToole, Laurence, and Kenneth Meier. 1999. Modeling the impact of public management: implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9 (14): 505 526. Pagano, Michael. 1990. State local relations in the 1990s. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 509:94105.
229 Pecorell a, Robert. 2006. The two New Yorks in the twentyfirst century: The city and the state. In Governing New York State eds. Robert Pecorella and Jeffrey Stonecash, 726. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press. Pelissero, John P. 1984. State aid an d city needs: An examination of residual state aid to large cities. The Journal of Politics 46 (3): 916 935. People vs. Hurlburt 24 Michigan 44 (1871). Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York NY: HarperCollins. Polser, Jeffrey, Laurie Milton, and William Swann. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 47:296324. Powell, Walter. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior 12:295336. Pryor, Mark. 2009. Arkansas Delegation announces passage of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill 10/20/09. Little Rock, AR: Office of Se nator Mark Pryor, News Release. http://www.kffb.com/blog/arkansas delegation announces passage of homelandsecurity appropriations bill/ (accessed August 10, 2010). Przeworski, A., and H. Teune. 1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry New York: Wiley Blackwell. Radin, Beryl. 1996. New governance for rural America: Creating intergovernmental partnerships. Lawrence, KS: Univ. Press of Kansas. Reagans, Ray, Ezra Zuckerman, and Bill McEvily. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (1): 101 133. Reddick, Christopher G. 2008. C ollaboration and homeland security preparedness: A survey of U.S. city managers. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 5 (1): 119. Ring, Peter, and Andrew Van de Ven. 1994. Development processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 19 (1): 90118. Rowell, June Savoy. 1982. Parish government. In Louisiana politics: Festival in a labyrinth ed. James Bolner, 14 25. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Univ. Press. SAFECOM. 2008. Enhancing communications and interoperability: Perspectives and key considerations for improving local and state coordination. Washington, DC: NGA.
230 Scharpf, Fritz. 1993. Games in hierarchies and networks: Analytical and empirical approaches to the study of governance and institutions Boulder, CO. Westview Press. Schlesing, Amy. 2009. Guards recovery force of 1,000 biggest since big ice of 00. Democrat Gazette (Little Rock) February 3, 2009. Schneiweiss, Leslie. 2007. Governor Perry praises progress of statewi de radio communications capabilities. US States News April 11, 2007. Schneiweiss, Leslie. 2007. Texas public safety agencies gather in Austin to discuss states crisis communications infrastructure. US States News July 30, 2007. Schultz, G.W. 2009. Homeland security marked by waste, lack of oversight. Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting, Washington, DC. http://www. publicintegrity.org/investigations/homeland_security/articles/entry/1901/ (accessed De cember 5, 2010). Seidman, Harold. 1998. Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organization. New York NY: Oxford Univ. Press. Silva, Fred, and Elisa Barbour. 1999. The state local fiscal relationship in California: A changing balance of power San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Sheldon, Silver Chair, Committee on Governmental Operations. 2004. First responders, a last priority: The status of New York States preparedness. http://assembly.state.ny.us/ comm/GovOps/20040426/ (accessed October 23, 2010). Stanford, Xenia. 2001. Organizational mapping: Knowing the pitfalls. Entovation International News 59. http://www.skyrme.com/UPDATES/u59_f1.htm (accessed January 28, 2010). STARCOM 21. 2000. A StarCom 21 wireless system will be purchased for the Illinois State Police for communications with a grant from Illinois FIRST. http:/ /www.scanillinois. com/F/SW/ISP starcom21.htm (accessed October 23, 2010). Stephens, G. Ross. 1974. State centralization and the erosion of local autonomy. Journal of Politics 36 (1): 4476. Stewart, Joseph, David Hedge, and James Lester. 2008. Pub lic policy: An evolutionary approach. Boston, MA: Thomas Wadsworth. Stonecash, Jeffrey. 1996. The state politics literature: Moving beyond covariation studies and pursuing politics. Polity 28 (4): 559 579. Stonecash, Jeffrey. 2006. The sources of conflict. In Governing New York State eds. Robert Pecorella and Jeffrey Stonecash, 3 6. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
231 Stratton, Ruth. 1989. Disaster relief: The politics of intergovernmental relations. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of Ameri ca. Swanson, Thor, William Mullen, John Pierce, and Charles Sheldon. 1985. Political life in Washington: Governing the Evergreen State Pullman, WA: Washington State Univ. Press. Telecommunications Industry Association, Press Release. 2002. New Cali fornia legislation endorses TIA/ANSI wireless interoperability standards for public safety applications 10/3/02. http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/legac y.cfm?parelease=02 114 (accessed August 10, 2010). Texas Radio Commission. 2010. Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Austin, TX: TxRC. Thomas, Craig. 1997. Public management as interagency cooperation : Testing epistemic community theory at the domestic level Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (2): 221246. Thompson, Don. 2003. Davis veto of radio compatibility bill questioned. The Associated Press State & Local Wire October 20, 2003, BC cycle. Thomson, Ann Marie. 2001. Collaboration:Meaning and measurement Bloomington, IN: Univ. Press. Thomson, Ann Marie, and James Perry. 2006. Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review 66 (1): 2032. Titan Systems Corporation. 2002. Arlington County: After action report on the response to the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Washington, DC: Titan. www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde x.asp?PID=325. (accessed March 1, 2009). Trochim, William. 1989. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning 12:355366. Upshaw, Amy. 2006. States radio network opens new lines of communication. Arkansas Democrat Ga zette. October 3, 2006. US Department of Homeland Security. 2007. TICS: Summary report and findings. Washington, DC: DHS. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grants scorecard report 010207.pdf (accessed August 30, 2009). US Department of Homeland Security and SAFECOM. 2008a. Criteria for statewide interoperability strategic plans. Washington, DC: DHS and SAFECOM. www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1304_fy2007.htm (accessed May 18, 2009).
232 US Department of Homeland Security and SAFECOM. 2008b. Statewide communication interoperability planning (SCIP) methodology v2.0: A collaborative approach to statewide communications interoperability planning. Washington, DC: DHS and SAFECOM. http://www.safecomprogram.gov/ NR/rdonlyres/DD91CD2C FD2E 4BBCAFEA E620B4BBB891/0/SCIPMethodologyv20FINAL.pdf (accessed May 18, 2009). US Department of Homeland Security and SAFECOM. 2008c. A guide for statewide communication interoperability plan (SCIP) implementation. Washin gton, DC: DHS and SAFECOM. http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24F10648264242F38305B29315F833BF/0/EstablishingGovernanceGuide.pdf (accessed May 19, 2009). US Department of Homeland Security and SAFECOM. 2008d. Fiscal year 2009 urban areas security initiative non profit security grant program. Washington, DC: DHS and SAFECOM. US Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Emergency Communications. 2008e. National emergency communications plan. Washington, DC: DHS and OEC. www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/natlemergency.htm (accessed May 19, 2 009). US Government Accountability Office. 2004a. Key crossagency emergency communications effort requires stronger collaboration Washington, DC: GAO. GAO 04494. US Government Accountability Office. 2004b. Federal leadership and intergovernmental cooperation required to achieve first responder interoperable communications Washington, DC: GAO. GAO04963T. US Government Accountability Office. 2007. Much work remains to improve communications interoperability. Washington, DC: GAO. GAO 07 301. Van de Ven, Andrew, and Gordon Walker. 1984. The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 598621. Walters, Jonathan. 2001. Safety is still a local issue. Governing 15:12. Ward, Robert. 2006. New York state government Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute. Warrick, Joby. 2005. Crisis communications remain flawed; Despite promises to fix systems, first responders were still isolated after Katrina. Washington Post December 10, 2005, A06. Washington State I nteroperability Executive Committee. 2008. Washington Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. Olympia, WA: WASIEC. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
233 Weitz, Richard. 2007. Enhancing emergency communications interoperability. Washington Post February 16, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/ 02/15/AR2007021500816.html (accessed September 21, 2009). Westphal, James, and Laurie Milton. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Qu arterly 45:366390. Wisconsin Governors Blue Ribbon Commission on State Local Partnerships for the 21st Century. 2001. Final report Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Madison Press. http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publicservice/reform/Default.htm (accessed May 19, 2009). Wise, Charles R., and Rania Nader. 2002. Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public Administration Review 62 :4457. Wise, Charles. 2002. Organizing for homeland security. Public Administration Review 62 (2): 131144. Wood, Donna, and Barbara Gray. 1991. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2): 13962. Yin, Robert. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zimmerman, Joseph. 1981. Measuring local discretionary authority Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Zimmerman, Joseph. 1995. State and local relations: A partnership approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
234 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kimberly Martin received a bachelors degree in American g overnment and international affairs from Sweet Briar C ollege in 2003. She received a m asters in political science from the University of Florida in 2007. Kimberly currently works at the University of Florida.