Telecommunications: States' Collection and Use of Funds for
Wireless Enhanced 911 Services (10-MAR-06, GAO-06-338).
"Enhanced 911" (E911) service refers to the capability of public
safety answering points to automatically receive an emergency
caller's location information. An industry association estimates
that nearly 82 million 911 calls are placed each year by callers
using mobile phones. Wireless E911 technology provides emergency
responders with the location and callback number of a person
calling 911 from a mobile phone. The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004
called for GAO to study state and local use of funds collected
for the purpose of wireless E911 implementation. We are reporting
on (1) the progress made in implementing wireless E911 services
throughout the country, (2) the states and localities that have
established taxes, fees, or charges for wireless E911
implementation, and (3) the states or localities that have used
funds collected for the purposes of wireless E911 for unrelated
purposes. To address these issues, we surveyed state-level E911
contacts on the collection and use of E911 funds. Of the 51 state
E911 contacts (including the District of Columbia) who were asked
to participate in our survey, we received 44 responses. We
provided the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a draft
of this report and FCC provided technical comments that we
incorporated.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-338
ACCNO: A48718
TITLE: Telecommunications: States' Collection and Use of Funds
for Wireless Enhanced 911 Services
DATE: 03/10/2006
SUBJECT: Accountability
Cellular telephones
Data collection
Emergency response
Enhanced 911
Financial analysis
Funds management
Intergovernmental relations
Surveys
Taxes
User fees
Wireless
Program implementation
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-338
* Report to Congressional Committees
* March 2006
* TELECOMMUNICATIONS
* States' Collection and Use of Funds for Wireless Enhanced 911
Services
* Contents
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Significant Progress Has Been Made toward Nationwide Wireless
E911 Implementation but Full Deployment is Years Away
* Most States Collect Funds for Wireless E911 Implementation,
Although Collection and Disbursement Practices Vary
* Most States Collect Surcharges for Wireless E911
Implementation
* States Employ Different Methods for Managing and Disbursing
Funds
* Most States Have Written Criteria on the Allowable Use of
E911 Funds
* A Few States Reported Using Wireless E911 Funds for Unrelated
Purposes
* Agency Comments
* Scope and Methodology
Report to Congressional Committees
March 2006
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
States' Collection and Use of Funds for Wireless Enhanced 911 Services
Contents
Figures
March 10, 2006Letter
The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Co-Chairman Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United
States Senate
The Honorable Joe Barton Chairman The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives
According to an industry association, 200 million 911 emergency calls are
placed annually. Another industry association estimates that nearly 82
million 911 calls are placed each year by callers using mobile (wireless)
phones. A capability known as "enhanced 911" (E911) provides emergency
responders with the location of, and a callback number for, a person
calling 911. This information facilitates the quick and accurate dispatch
of emergency responders, especially in cases where the caller does not
know or cannot clearly state his or her location (e.g., the caller is
suffering from a heart attack).
Most areas across the country now have E911 capabilities for traditional
wireline phones, where the caller's street address automatically appears
on-screen for the 911 call taker. As the use of mobile phones has
increased, Congress and others in the federal government and public safety
communities have grown more concerned that E911 location information was
not often available for those dialing 911 from a mobile phone.
Implementing E911 for mobile phones is inherently more challenging. Unlike
wireline phones, where the phone number is linked to a specific street
address, providing E911 call takers with location information for a mobile
phone involves technologies that must calculate the geographic coordinates
of the caller's location at the time of the call and display these
coordinates as a location the 911 call taker can understand. Moreover, a
wireless 911 call must be routed along the networks of both a wireless
telephone company and a wireline telephone company before terminating at a
facility where 911 calls are answered, known as a public safety answering
point (PSAP); there are more than 6,000 PSAPs nationwide, often at a
county or city level. All three entities-wireless carriers, wireline
carriers, and PSAPs-must be properly interconnected and have certain
equipment in place in order for location information to be captured, sent,
and displayed to 911 call takers. Deployment usually proceeds through two
phases: Phase I provides general location information by identifying the
cell tower or cell site that is receiving the wireless call and also
provides the phone number of the caller, while Phase II provides more
precise caller-location information-within 50 to 300 meters in most cases.
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 called on the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to encourage and support efforts
by the states to deploy wireless E911 services by working with state and
local officials, the telecommunications industry, consumer groups, and
those involved in public safety services.1 At the federal level, FCC and
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) have taken steps to promote
the deployment of E911 location technologies for mobile phones. According
to FCC, the Commission monitors the deployment of wireless E911 service by
larger carriers, enforces its wireless E911 requirements, and grants
appropriate waivers of its wireless E911 requirements when consistent with
the public interest. FCC further stated that it works with public safety
organizations, wireless carriers, and manufacturers to foster wireless
E911 deployment. Also, DOT has recognized the relationship between
wireless E911 services and highway safety and is working with a key
nongovernmental organization, the National Emergency Number Association
(NENA), to develop a PSAP database that tracks E911 implementation.2 The
only federally mandated timeframes for installation of wireless E911
technologies are those placed on wireless carriers by FCC. FCC has no
authority to place timeframes on PSAPs, which are under state and local
jurisdiction. States and local jurisdictions establish timetables for
implementation by their PSAPs, which must have the necessary equipment to
receive and display location information that the 911 call taker can relay
to police, fire, and rescue services. States must also fund the equipment
upgrades needed by their PSAPs for E911 service.
The pace of wireless E911 deployment has been a key concern for the
Congress. In our November 2003 report on wireless E911, we noted that the
implementation of wireless E911 was several years away in many states,
raising the prospect of piecemeal availability of this service across the
country for an indefinite number of years to come.3 We found that the
funding of equipment upgrades at PSAPs was a major issue for many states
and localities and was the largest factor affecting the progress of E911
implementation. Most states had put in place a surcharge on wireless
customers to pay for E911 upgrades to their PSAPs. We found, though, that
some states had redirected these funds to uses that were unrelated to
E911.
Recently, the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 authorized a federal grant program
to provide assistance to states, local governments, or tribal
organizations in implementing E911.4 Recognizing that some states had used
the funds raised for E911 for other purposes, the act (among other things)
stipulated that a state or local government would not be eligible for a
federal E911 grant if it had used its E911 taxes, fees, or charges for
unrelated purposes during the period beginning 180 days immediately
preceding the date of the application and continuing until the funds are
available to the applicant. Furthermore, if the grantee used state or
local E911 funds for unrelated purposes during the term of the grant, the
grant would have to be repaid. The act also called for us to study state
and local use of funds collected for the purpose of wireless E911
implementation. Accordingly, we are reporting on (1) the progress made in
implementing wireless E911 services throughout the country, (2) the states
and localities that have established taxes, fees, or charges for wireless
E911 implementation, and (3) the states or localities that have used funds
collected for the purposes of wireless E911 for unrelated purposes during
2005.
To address these issues, we collected information from state-level E911
contacts5 from October 2005 to January 2006 using a Web-based survey. We
designed the survey to cover the collection, management, and use of
wireless E911 funds at the state and local level. Of the 51 state-level
E911 contacts (including the District of Columbia) who were asked to
participate in our survey, we received 44 completed questionnaires. We did
not receive completed questionnaires from Alaska, Colorado, the District
of Columbia, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. To view
selected results of this survey, go to http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?
GAO-06-400sp.
We used data from NENA, current as of January 2006, to provide information
on the progress made in deploying wireless E911. To assess the reliability
of NENA's data regarding the number of PSAPs receiving Phase II data, we
interviewed knowledgeable officials from NENA about their data collection
methods. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. We conducted our review between February 2005 and
January 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief
Since our last report in November 2003, significant progress has been made
in implementing wireless E911 throughout the country. At that time, we
reported that nearly 65 percent of the more than 6,000 PSAPs nationwide
were capable of receiving Phase I location information with wireless 911
calls and 18 percent of PSAPs had implemented Phase II wireless E911 with
at least one wireless carrier. According to data from NENA, as of January
2006, nearly 80 percent of PSAPs are capable of receiving Phase I location
information and 57 percent have implemented Phase II with at least one
wireless carrier. Of the 44 state E911 contacts who completed our survey
about E911 implementation in their states, 10 responded that Phase II
wireless services have already been implemented in their state and 21
others reported that their state will have Phase II wireless E911
implemented in the next 5 years with at least one wireless carrier.
However, three state contacts stated it will take more than 5 years to
have Phase II wireless E911 capabilities throughout their states, five
stated that this service might never be implemented statewide, and five
others had no basis to judge when the service would be available.
Based on our survey results and NENA data, almost all states (48 states
and the District of Columbia) require wireless carriers to collect monthly
surcharges from their subscribers to cover the costs associated with
deploying wireless E911 service. Responses to our survey showed that the
surcharges ranged from $0.20 to $3.00 per month. For the two states that
do not impose surcharges, one funds E911 with general revenues and the
other with the state's Universal Service Fund, which supports various
telecommunications programs. States have the discretion to determine how
they will manage and distribute funds collected for wireless E911. Some
states allocate funds to localities using a formula based approach, while
others distribute the funds directly to the localities based on certain
criteria. We found that many states that responded to our survey had
established written criteria on the allowable uses of E911 funds, such as
for equipment upgrades, software packages, and training of personnel.
Based on the responses to our survey, we found that four states did not
use all E911 funds for E911 implementation purposes during 2005. These
states reported that some E911 funds were transferred to their state's
general fund. For example, one state told us that E911 funds were
transferred to the general fund to help balance the state budget. Another
state reported that some E911 funds were transferred to the state police
since the police answer emergency calls in some areas of the state. For
the six states and the District of Columbia that did not respond to our
survey, we do not know whether they used E911 funds or made them available
for purposes unrelated to E911 implementation. We heard from four other
state E911 contacts that they were unsure if all E911 funds had been used
for E911 purposes because funds are collected and maintained at the local
level.
Background
Nationwide implementation of E911 by local wireline telephone companies
began in the 1970s; today, 99 percent of the population is covered by
wireline 911 service. With wireline E911 service, emergency calls are
automatically routed to the appropriate PSAP6 and the call taker receives
the telephone number and street address of the caller. In 1996, FCC
responded to the rising number of mobile telephone subscribers and the
resulting increase in wireless 911 calls by adopting rules for wireless
E911 that established a two-phase implementation approach for the wireless
carriers and set deadlines for wireless carriers regarding their part in
E911 deployment.7 FCC required that (1) by April 1998, or within 6 months
of a request from a PSAP, wireless carriers be prepared to provide the
PSAP with the wireless phone number of the caller and the location of the
cell site receiving the 911 call (Phase I information); and (2) by October
2001, or within 6 months of receiving a request from a PSAP, wireless
carriers be prepared to provide the PSAP with the geographic coordinates
of the caller's location with greater precision, generally within 50 to
300 meters (Phase II information).8
As shown in figure 1, the wireless carriers, local exchange carriers
(LECs), and PSAPs must have appropriate equipment and interconnections for
wireless E911 calls to be sent to and received by PSAPs with the caller's
location information. For example, wireless carriers must finance the
implementation of a caller location solution and test their equipment to
verify its accuracy.9 Local exchange carriers are generally responsible
for ensuring that all the necessary connections between wireless carriers,
PSAPs, and databases have been installed and are operating correctly. The
original E911 system was designed to carry only the caller's telephone
number with the call, and the associated fixed address was obtained from
an established database. Wireless E911, however, requires more data items,
and the mobile caller's location must be obtained during the call and
delivered to the PSAP separately using additional data delivery
capabilities. In order to translate the latitude and longitude location
information into a street address, PSAPs usually must acquire and install
mapping software. PSAPs may also need to acquire new computers to receive
and display this information. Getting PSAPs the technology needed to
receive wireless E911 location information is primarily a state and local
responsibility because PSAPs serve an emergency response function that has
traditionally fallen under state or local jurisdiction. FCC has no
authority to set deadlines for the PSAPs' readiness.
Figure 1: Simplified Wireless E911 Call to PSAP with Phase II Capability
The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 was enacted to coordinate 911 and E911
services at the federal, state, and local level; and to ensure that the
taxes, fees, or charges imposed for enhancing 911 services are used only
for the purposes for which the funds are collected. The act called for the
creation of an E911 Implementation Coordination Office to improve E911
coordination and communication. This office will be operated jointly by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and
will be housed at NHTSA. Although the office had not received an
appropriation as of January 2006, a DOT official told us that NHTSA and
NTIA are working together to delineate their respective responsibilities.
The act also authorized matching federal grants for eligible state, local,
and tribal entities for the deployment and operation of Phase II E911
services. The act requires applicants for a matching federal grant to
certify that no portion of any designated state and local E911 funds are
being obligated or expended for any purpose other than the purposes for
which the funds are designated.10 The act authorized $250 million per year
for matching grants for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. However, no funds
were appropriated for these grants in 2005.11
Significant Progress Has Been Made toward Nationwide Wireless E911
Implementation but Full Deployment is Years Away
Significant progress has been made in implementing wireless E911 services
since our last report on this topic in November 2003.12 At that time,
using data from NENA, we reported that nearly 65 percent of PSAPs
nationwide had implemented Phase I wireless E911 services and 18 percent
of PSAPs had implemented Phase II wireless E911 with at least one wireless
carrier. Since that time, there has been a marked increase in both of
these percentages. As of January 2006, NENA reports that nearly 80 percent
of PSAPs nationwide had implemented Phase I wireless E911 services and 57
percent had implemented Phase II with at least one wireless carrier. At
the county level, NENA reports that approximately 70 percent of counties
nationwide have implemented Phase I wireless E911 services and 44 percent
of the counties have implemented Phase II with at least one wireless
carrier. According to NENA, many of the PSAPs that have implemented Phase
I and Phase II are in areas that cover higher concentrations of people,
and as a result, approximately 85 percent of the U.S. population is now
covered by Phase I and nearly 69 percent by Phase II with at least one
wireless carrier. See figure 2 for nationwide deployment of Phase I and II
based on population coverage by state.13
Figure 2: Percentage of State Population That Has Phase I and Phase II
Wireless E911 Coverage with at Least One Wireless Carrier as of January
2006
While progress is being made in wireless E911 implementation, the
estimates from state contacts indicate that no clear picture is emerging
on when Phase II will be fully deployed nationwide. As noted earlier, FCC
has no authority to set deadlines for PSAPs to implement wireless E911
services. As a result, there is no federal requirement for full wireless
E911 implementation and states may or may not have set their own deadlines
for implementation. In our survey of state E911 contacts, we asked
respondents to provide us with an estimate of when they believed their
state would have wireless Phase II service fully in place with at least
one wireless carrier per PSAP. We found that state E911 contacts offered a
wide range of estimated Phase II completion dates. As shown in figure 3,
10 of 44 state contacts who responded to our survey indicated that Phase
II was already in place throughout their state. Eight state contacts noted
that they would have Phase II in place for all of their PSAPs with at
least one wireless carrier within a year. Thirteen state contacts provided
a range of 1 to 5 years for Phase II to be implemented, with three state
contacts responding that it would take more than 5 years. Furthermore,
five state contacts noted that their state might never be 100 percent
complete for Phase II service. For example, one state contact noted that
four rural counties opted not to apply for state funding to implement
wireless E911 and two of these counties have only decided to implement
wireline E911. Contacts in five states had no basis to judge when Phase II
would be in place in their states.
Figure 3: State E911 Contacts' Estimates of When Their State Would Have
Phase II Wireless E911 Implemented for all PSAPs with at Least One
Wireless Carrier
Most States Collect Funds for Wireless E911 Implementation, Although
Collection and Disbursement Practices Vary
Based on our survey results and NENA data, we found most states obtain
E911 funds through state-mandated surcharges collected by wireless
carriers from the carriers' wireless subscribers. States have the
discretion to determine how these funds will be managed and distributed.
Some states allocate funds using a formula based approach, while others
distribute the funds based on PSAP requests. According to our survey
results, 35 states had established written criteria on the allowable uses
of E911 funds. Examples of allowable uses for the funds included the
purchase of equipment upgrades, software packages, and training of
personnel.
Most States Collect Surcharges for Wireless E911 Implementation
At present, state and local governments determine how to pay for PSAP
wireless E911 upgrades. We found, based on our survey results and NENA
data, that 48 states and the District of Columbia collect surcharges to
cover the costs of implementing wireless E911 (see fig. 4). For these
states, funds are collected by wireless carriers from their subscribers.
The other two states do not impose surcharges on wireless subscribers, but
still have a wireless E911 funding mechanism in place. Specifically, the
state E911 contact for Missouri told us that the state uses funds from the
local general revenue, local 911 taxes, and wireline funds for E911
implementation; and the Vermont state E911 contact said the state uses
funds from the state's Universal Service Fund, which supports various
telecommunications programs. For states that impose surcharges, the
surcharge amount is usually established in state law.14 Responses to our
survey indicated that the per-subscriber surcharges varied from state to
state and ranged from $0.20 to $3.00 per month. We also found the
surcharge amount could vary within a state. For example, one state has a
maximum monthly surcharge amount of $1.50, and although most of the
counties collect the maximum amount, several counties collect less than
the maximum.
Figure 4: Range of Monthly Wireless E911 Surcharges by State as of 2005
aCalifornia collects 0.65 percent of intrastate calls.
bAccording to the state E911 contact, Missouri uses funds from the local
general revenue, local 911 taxes, and wireline funds for E911
implementation.
cAccording to the state E911 contact, Vermont uses funds from the state's
Universal Service Fund for E911 implementation.
Based on the responses to our survey, several states indicated that
insufficient funding collected for wireless E911 was impeding the state's
ability to implement this service. We heard from one state that relies on
funds collected from both the wireline and wireless surcharges to fund
E911 that due to Hurricane Katrina, the state expected to see a drop in
wireline funding over the next 2 to 3 years. A county official from that
state said that because many residents and businesses impacted by the
storm have not reestablished telephone service, the state is not receiving
telephone fees from those residents. Another state reported that one of
the biggest issues in implementing wireless E911 is the inability to
collect funds from seasonal populations in many of the state's resort
areas. Small towns in the state experience a large influx of tourists
during various times of the year. However, because the state collects
funds based on the billing address of the subscriber, counties in the
state are limited in their ability to cover the costs of E911 services
that out-of-state tourists expect while visiting local resort areas.
States Employ Different Methods for Managing and Disbursing Funds
States and local governments have the authority to determine how they will
manage and disburse their E911 funds. Of the 31 states that answered our
question pertaining to the management of E911 funds, 23 indicated that the
funds are managed at the state level, 6 said funds are managed locally,
and 2 others indicated that the funds are managed by a mix of state and
local entities. We found that various state-level entities can have
authority to manage the funds collected for wireless E911 implementation,
including the public utility commission, the treasury office, and
state-level boards. In one state, for example, a state-level board
comprised of members from municipal organizations, PSAPs, state and local
law enforcement agencies, local exchange service providers, and the
wireless carriers industry established the criteria and guidelines for
administering the funds. Of the seven states indicating that the local
government manages the funds, one state said that the governing boards of
54 local 911 jurisdictions (51 counties and 3 cities) have the ultimate
authority over the expenditure of wireless E911 funds.
Methods of disbursement also varied. Some states use formulas based on
various criteria to determine the amount of funds distributed to different
localities. For example, a number of states allocate the funds to
localities based on criteria such as the volume of 911 calls made in the
jurisdiction or the number of wireless subscribers. Other states allocate
funds based on PSAP requests. One state reported that it reimburses county
governments and providers for the costs they have incurred to implement
wireless E911 services. Alternatively, the PSAPs in another state must
first request funding from the state, which a state-level office must then
approve.
Most States Have Written Criteria on the Allowable Use of E911 Funds
As part of our survey, we asked the state E911 contacts if their states
had established written criteria on the allowable uses of funds collected
for the purposes of wireless E911 implementation. Of the 38 state contacts
who responded to this question, 35 reported that their state had
established written criteria, while the other 3 indicated that written
criteria had not been established. Examples of allowable uses of funding
include the purchase of equipment upgrades or software, personnel costs
directly attributable to the delivery of 911 service, and costs related to
the maintenance of Phase I and II services. For example, according to one
state, its law permits wireless E911 funds to cover the salaries,
benefits, and uniforms of 911 service employees such as call takers,
dispatchers, and supervisors. We also asked the state E911 contacts if the
state had any kind of oversight procedures to control the use of E911
funds. Of the 38 state contacts who responded to this question, 33
reported that their state had established oversight procedures to control
the use of E911 funds, 3 others indicated no oversight procedures had been
established, and 2 contacts did not know. According to our survey results,
audits were the most common approach used to oversee the use of E911
funds. For example, one state reported that the wireless E911 fund and the
state's wireless E911 services board is audited annually by the state's
Auditor of Public Accounts and that the reports are available to the
public online.
A Few States Reported Using Wireless E911 Funds for Unrelated Purposes
Based on the responses of the 44 state E911 contacts who completed our
survey, four states that collected funds for the purposes of wireless E911
implementation made those funds available or used them for purposes
unrelated to E911 during 2005.15 For the six states and the District of
Columbia that did not respond to our survey, we do not know whether they
used any of their E911 funds for unrelated purposes. Four other states
were unsure if their wireless E911 funds have been used for unrelated
purposes because the funds are collected and maintained at the local
level. See figure 5 for a complete breakout by state of their use of E911
funds during 2005, along with their progress in implementing E911 in their
counties.
Figure 5: State Wireless E911 Implementation by County, as of January
2006, and the Use of E911 Funds during 2005
aAccording to the state E911 contact, funds are not specifically collected
for wireless E911. Rather, funds are collected for wireline and wireless
911 and these revenues are used to support the overall statewide 911
program.
bAccording to the state E911 contact, use of wireless E911 funds is
determined at the county or local level.
cAccording to the state E911 contact, some funds have been transferred to
the state's General Revenue Fund. The amount was verified by a state
budget official.
dAccording to the state E911 contact, E911 funds are not collected in the
state.
eAccording to the state E911 contact, the state's General Assembly took
funds from the E911 fund to help balance the state's budget. The amount
was verified by a state budget official.
fAccording to the state E911 contact, the wireless E911 fund was just
created in 2005.
gAccording to the state E911 contact, E911 surcharge revenues are
deposited into the state's General Fund. The amount not used on E911
implementation was verified by a state budget official.
hAccording to the state E911 contact, E911 funds have been frozen and are
not being used to deploy E911 services.
iAccording to the state E911 contact, the state does not collect E911
funds; rather, the state uses monies from the state's Universal Service
Fund to implement wireless E911 services.
jAccording to the state E911 contact, some E911 funds were transferred to
the state's General Fund and some were transferred to the state police
since they answer wireless E911 calls in some areas of the state. The
amount was verified by a state budget official.
For the four states that reported E911 funds were made available or used
for purposes not related to E911 during 2005, the state contacts reported
that the E911 funds were transferred to their state's general fund. For
example, the E911 contact for North Carolina reported that E911 funds were
transferred to the general fund to help balance the state budget.
According to the E911 contact for Virginia, funds were transferred to both
the general fund and to the state police, which responds to emergency
calls in some areas of the state. One of these four states, Rhode Island,
has implemented Phase II services in all of its counties and Virginia has
implemented Phase II for 83 percent of its counties. For the remaining two
states, Illinois has implemented Phase II in 47 percent of its counties
and North Carolina for 71 percent of its counties.
One state responded to our survey that, while E911 funds have not been
made available for other purposes, approximately $72 million in state
wireline and wireless E911 fees collected have not been appropriated to
the state 911 program. In other words, the funds remain in dedicated E911
accounts, but are "frozen" and are not being used to deploy or maintain
E911 services. We heard from four other states that because funds for
wireless E911 are collected and managed by local jurisdictions without any
state involvement, the state is unsure if wireless E911 funds have been
used for purposes other than wireless E911 implementation. For example,
one state E911 contact told us that the state currently has no mechanism
to monitor the use of wireless E911 funds at the local level. However,
this contact further said that if a federal grant program for wireless
E911 is funded, the state could establish a mechanism to validate that
local jurisdictions were using wireless E911 funds only for allowable
purposes.
Agency Comments
We provided FCC with a draft of this report for their review and comment.
In response, FCC provided technical comments that we incorporated where
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Chairman, FCC. We will make copies available to others
upon request. The report is available at no charge on GAO's Web site at h
ttp://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-2834 or [email protected] . Key contributors to
this report were John Finedore, Assistant Director; Kimberly Berry, Andy
Clinton, Stuart Kaufman, Sally Moino, Josh Ormond, Jay Smale, and Mindi
Weisenbloom.
Mark L. Goldstein Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Scope and Methodology Appendix I
The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 required us to review the imposition and use
of taxes, fees, or other charges by states or localities that are
designated to improve emergency communications services, including
"enhanced 911" (E911). As such, we are reporting on (1) the progress made
in implementing wireless E911 services throughout the country, (2) the
states and localities that have established taxes, fees, or charges for
wireless E911 implementation, and (3) the states or localities that have
used funds collected for the purposes of wireless E911 for unrelated
purposes.
To obtain general information on wireless E911 implementation, we
interviewed officials from the National Emergency Number Association
(NENA), the National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators, and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We also met with officials from
the Department of Transportation to learn the status of the E911
Implementation Coordination Office. To obtain information pertaining to
the collection, management, and use of wireless E911 funds at the state
and local level, we developed and administered a Web-based survey to
state-level E911 contacts. The state E911 contacts are listed on FCC's Web
site as the point of contact for emergency communications in their states
and were provided by the governor of each state in response to a request
from FCC. From September 21, 2005, through September 28, 2005, we
conducted a series of "pretests" with state E911 contacts to help further
refine our questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the survey, and
identify any potentially biased questions. Upon completion of the pretests
and development of the final survey questions and format, we sent an
announcement of the upcoming survey to the state E911 contacts (including
the District of Columbia) on October 4, 2005. They were notified that the
survey was available online on October 6, 2005. We sent follow-up e-mail
messages to non-respondents as of October 30, 2005, and then attempted
several times to contact those who had not completed the survey. The
survey was available online until January 20, 2006. Of the population of
51 state E911 contacts who were asked to participate in our survey, we
received 44 completed questionnaires for an overall response rate of 86
percent. Although the individual listed as the Wyoming state E911 contact
was unable to answer the questionnaire, a representative at the county
level completed it. We did not receive completed questionnaires from
Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma,
and South Dakota. We administered the survey between October 2005 and
January 2006. To view selected results of the survey, go to
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-400sp.
The practical difficulties of conducting surveys may introduce errors
commonly referred to as "nonsampling error." For example, differences in
how a particular question is interpreted or the sources of information
available to respondents may introduce error. To minimize nonsampling
error, we worked with a social science survey specialist to develop the
questionnaire and conducted three pretests. In addition, steps were taken
during the data analysis to minimize error further, such as performing
computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and completing a review of
data analysis by an independent reviewer.
We contacted state budget officials for the four states that reported
using funds collected for the purpose of E911 implementation for unrelated
purposes to verify the information we received in response to our survey.
Other than this, we did not independently verify the survey results. To
provide information on the progress made in deploying wireless E911, in
addition to the survey, we used NENA data current as of January 2006. To
assess the reliability of NENA's data regarding the number of public
safety answering points receiving Phase II data, we interviewed
knowledgeable officials from NENA about their data collection methods and
reviewed any existing documentation relating to the data sources. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
We conducted our review between February 2005 and January 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
(543119)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-338 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. To view selected results of the
survey, go to http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-400sp.
For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-338 , a report to congressional committees
March 2006
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
States' Collection and Use of Funds for Wireless Enhanced 911 Services
"Enhanced 911" (E911) service refers to the capability of public safety
answering points to automatically receive an emergency caller's location
information. An industry association estimates that nearly 82 million 911
calls are placed each year by callers using mobile phones. Wireless E911
technology provides emergency responders with the location and callback
number of a person calling 911 from a mobile phone. The ENHANCE 911 Act of
2004 called for GAO to study state and local use of funds collected for
the purpose of wireless E911 implementation. We are reporting on (1) the
progress made in implementing wireless E911 services throughout the
country, (2) the states and localities that have established taxes, fees,
or charges for wireless E911 implementation, and (3) the states or
localities that have used funds collected for the purposes of wireless
E911 for unrelated purposes. To address these issues, we surveyed
state-level E911 contacts on the collection and use of E911 funds. Of the
51 state E911 contacts (including the District of Columbia) who were asked
to participate in our survey, we received 44 responses.
We provided the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a draft of
this report and FCC provided technical comments that we incorporated.
Significant progress has been made towards implementing wireless E911
throughout the country since our November 2003 report. Deployment of
wireless E911 usually proceeds through two phases: Phase I provides
general location information by identifying the cell tower or cell site
that is receiving the wireless call. Phase II provides more precise
caller-location information, within 50 to 300 meters in most cases. We
reported in November 2003, that nearly 65 percent of the more than 6,000
public safety answering points nationwide were capable of receiving Phase
I information
with wireless 911 calls and 18 percent had implemented Phase II wireless
E911 with at least one wireless carrier. Currently, according to the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), nearly 80 percent of public
safety answering points are capable of receiving Phase I location
information and 57 percent have implemented Phase II for at least one
wireless carrier. However, based on our survey results, full
implementation is still several years away in many states. In response to
our survey, three state E911 contacts reported that it will take more than
5 years to have wireless E911 completely implemented in their states, and
five others said that the technology might never be fully implemented in
their states.
Based on our survey results and NENA data, we found that nearly all
states-48 states and the District of Columbia-require the wireless
carriers to collect surcharges from their subscribers to cover the costs
associated with implementing wireless E911. Responses to our survey showed
the per-subscriber surcharges ranged from $0.20 to $3.00 per month. The
two states that do not impose surcharges fund E911 through general revenue
or the state's Universal Service Fund, which was established to support
various telecommunications programs. States have the discretion to
determine how they will manage and distribute the funds and we found the
management of the funds and methods of disbursement varied. According to
our survey results, many of the states that responded have written
criteria on the allowable uses of E911 funds. Allowable uses of the E911
funds include purchasing equipment upgrades and software packages.
Four state E911 contacts responded to our survey that their states did not
use all of the funds collected for E911 on E911 implementation purposes
during 2005. Six states, and the District of Columbia, did not respond to
our survey so we do not know whether those states used E911 funds or made
them available for other purposes. Four other states reported that they
were unsure if all E911 funds were used solely for E911 purposes because
the funds are collected and managed at the local level. The four states
that reported that E911 funds were made available or used for purposes not
related to E911 indicated that the E911 funds were transferred to their
state's general fund. For example, one state told us that E911 funds were
transferred to the general fund to help balance the state budget. Another
state reported that some E911 funds were transferred to the state police
since they answer emergency calls in some areas of the state.
*** End of document. ***