Transcript Enhancing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability Indiana May 2009 Office of Emergency Communications.

Enhancing Governance to Achieve Statewide
Communications Interoperability
Indiana
May 2009
Office of Emergency Communications
Purpose & Outcomes
Purpose
• To support the enhancement of State & regional planning and
coordination initiatives by engaging Indiana’s practitioners.
Outcomes
• Understanding of Indiana’s current Governance structure
• Gain perspective on how regional coordination can strengthen
interoperable communications planning within Indiana
• Establish consensus around governance principles that will enhance
Indiana’s regional coordinating structure & functionality
• Identify membership, roles and responsibilities for regional groups
Establishing Governance to Achieve
Statewide Communications Interoperability
Dennis Nowicki & Woody Sandy
Office of Emergency Communications
ICTAP
May 6, 2009
Interoperability Continuum
•4
Breakout
• In your judgment, where is the State at on each lane
of the Continuum?
• In your judgment, where is your region at on each
lane of the Continuum?
GOVERNANCE?????
WHAT DOES FORMALIZED GOVERNANCE PROVIDE?
• A unified approach across multiple disciplines and
jurisdictions
• A forum for addresses key challenges associated with
achieving interoperable communications
• Provides a framework in which stakeholders can
collaborate and make decisions that reflect
shared/common objectives
• Drives the conception, design and implementation of
interoperability
• Aids in funding
Why The Focus on
Governance??
Why The Focus on Governance
“It has become increasingly clear to the
emergency response community that
communications interoperability cannot
be solved by any one entity; achieving
interoperability requires a partnership
among emergency response
organizations across all levels of
government”
[SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum]
The NECP: Statewide Governance
• Objective 1: Formal Governance Structures and
Clear Leadership Roles
– Initiative 1.1: Facilitate the development of effective
governance groups and designated emergency
communications leadership roles.
• Within 12 months, all States and territories should
establish full-time statewide interoperability
coordinators or equivalent positions.
• Within 12 months, Statewide Interoperability Governing
Bodies (or their equivalents) in all 56 States and
territories should incorporate the recommended
membership as outlined in the SCIP Guidebook and
should be established via legislation or executive order
by an individual State’s governor.
• Within 18 months, DHS will publish uniform criteria
and best practices for establishing governance groups
and emergency communications leadership roles
across the Nation.
The NECP: Statewide Governance
•
The NECP recommended DHS
publish uniform criteria and best
practices for establishing
governance groups and
emergency communications
leadership roles across the
Nation.
•
The new Governance Guide was
released in December 2008. In
creating the guide, OEC
– Developed criteria to evaluate the
governance and implementation
sections of the SCIPs.
– Reviewed the governance
sections of all 56 SCIPs.
– Used findings from research and
interviews to develop the
governance methodology.
The Interoperability Continuum
Key Elements of Effective Statewide Governance
• Establish a statewide oversight body to support SCIP
development and implementation.
• Seek legislative or gubernatorial authority.
• Work from the bottom up.
• Promote the practitioner-driven approach by actively engaging
stakeholders.
• Leverage associations or people authorized to speak on behalf
of a larger group of stakeholders.
• Promote consensus and shared decision-making.
• Promote transparency.
• Promote sustainability.
• Establish and articulate a shared understanding of goals.
• Stay flexible.
Components of a Statewide Governance
Structure
Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC)
• Responsible for the daily
operations of the State’s
interoperability efforts and guided
by the initiatives outlined in the
NECP and the SCIP.
• Should be placed in a “neutral”
State government position and
able to present an unbiased view
of the overall interoperable
communications issues within the
State.
Statewide Interoperability Governing Body (SIGB)
• Serves as the primary strategic steering
group for the statewide interoperability
effort.
• Ideally, this governing body is formalized
as a governor’s committee through an
executive order or legislation.
– This will provide the group with the authority
to make all interoperable communications
funding recommendations regarding the
State’s general funds and Federal grant
allocations.
• Sets overall direction, process, and policy,
while the SWIC provides day-to-day
administration and project management.
Statewide Interoperability Governing Body:
Recommended Membership
State Government Leadership:
• Statewide Interoperability
Coordinator’s Office (SWIC)
• State’s Administrative Agent
(SAA)
• State’s Director of Homeland
Security
• Key executive and legislative
leaders
State Agencies:
• State’s Information Technologies
Agency
• State’s National Guard
• State’s Department of
Transportation
• State’s Department of
Emergency Management
• State’s Police Agency
• State’s Fire Agency
• State’s Office of Emergency
Medical Services (EMS)
State Associations:
• EMS
• Fire
• Law Enforcement
• Cities
• Counties
• State’s Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials (APCO)
• State’s Emergency Managers
Association
• State’s National Emergency
Number Association (NENA)
Statewide Interoperability Governing Body:
Recommended Membership
Intrastate Regional Representation:
• Chairperson from each regional
committee
• Representative from each Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) within
a region, if applicable
• Representative from each operational
area within a region, if applicable
Tribal Nation Representation:
• Tribal law, fire, EMS, and/or
government representatives, if
applicable
Federal Government Representation:
• FCC Coordinators
• FEMA Regional Emergency
Communications Coordination
Working Group (RECCWG) Members
• United States Border Patrol
• United States Coast Guard
• United States Forest Service
Others:
• Public works associations that
manage critical infrastructure
• State associations that represent
hospitals and public health
organizations
• Bordering States’ Statewide
Interoperability Coordinators (nonvoting)
• Private industry (non-voting)
SIGB Primary Responsibilities
•
•
•
•
Outreach
SCIP Programmatic Implementation
Grants Management and Policy Development
Measurement
Regional Communications Interoperability
Committees
• Developing and sustaining regional
committees are crucial to the
statewide effort.
• The regional bodies provide the
operational insight and perspective.
• The group will assist in developing
appropriate standard operating
procedures, training opportunities,
and tactical interoperability plans for
their regions’ unique jurisdictions and
disciplines.
State Agency Interoperability Committee
• This committee is similar to
the Regional Interoperability
Committees, except that it
includes representatives from
the State agencies that
respond to incidents across
the State.
• OEC recommends that each
State have a State Agency
Interoperability Committee in
addition to a SIGB, to focus on
State agencies’ interoperable
communications needs.
Initiative Working Groups (IWG)
• Initiative Working Groups are the worker-bees of the
statewide interoperability effort.
• They complete the tasks associated with initiatives
identified within the SCIP and provide a
recommendation report on the initiatives to the
SIGB.
Bordering States and
Federal Partnerships
•
OEC recommends three basic
approaches to ensure statewide
coordination with bordering States
and Federal partners:
1. Invite all neighboring States’
Interoperability Coordinators and
identify Federal partners to serve as
non-voting members on the SIGB.
2. Create a multi-State interoperable
communications consortium.
3. Coordinate with the FEMA Regional
Administrator regarding the activities of
FEMA’s RECCWGs.
In Summary
• Start by getting the right
people to the table.
• Use the Governance
Guide to assist during
SCIP and NECP
implementation.
• Learn from other States’
governance models.
INDIANA’S APPROACH TO
GOVERNANCE
Indiana’s Governing Body – The
Integrated Public Safety
Commission (IPSC)
MISSION OF THE IPSC
To provide an interoperable and reliable public safety
communications system to all Hoosier first
responders and public safety professionals for use
during routine, emergency and task force situations.
We will strengthen community safety and security by
minimizing the financial and technological barriers
to interoperable communications and by breaking
down regionalization of systems through increased
cooperation and communication. (IN SCIP p. iv)
INDIANA SCIP on GOVERNANCE
STRENGTHS
• “Governance – At this stage, Indiana is well
positioned in governance, with a statutorily
established structure (Integrated Public Safety
Commission) that represents the diverse range of
public safety stakeholders across the state.
Additionally, many local and regional interoperability
working groups establish interoperability plans and
communicate those forward to the IPSC
Commission.”
Regional Approach
The second most common approach
observed, this approach to statewide
governance establishes individual
interoperability committees
organized by State defined regions.
Highlights
 Interoperability committees are organized by
regions as defined by the State
 Many utilized existing regional structures
 Each region focuses solely on the interests of
their particular region and do so at the regional
level
 Each region may form individual working groups
or SME committees for their region
SCIP Analysis: What did we find?
Regional Approach
Advantages
Concerns
 Provides an opportunity for greater
participation at the local/practitioner level
 Has the potential to bring to light unique
concerns of each region
 Allows the State to leverage existing regional
structures, which may minimize the time
necessary to establish governance structures
 May not fully address the statewide aspects of
interoperability
 Does not clarify if regions are collaborating
with each other on interoperability issues
 Impacts consistency in approach and
execution across the State if intra-regional
coordination does not exist
GOVERNANCE IN INDIANA
GOVERNANCE IN INDIANA
Regional Approach?
Indiana’s Regional Approach
“For
enhancing governance, the State’s
primary goal is to identify the
responsible persons or groups within
each county or region within Indiana,
and to facilitate a process for each area
to formally address and document the
critical planning activities relating to
communications interoperability.”
ACCOMPLISHING THE IPSC MISSION
GOALS
• Provide a common understanding of communications
interoperability throughout the state of Indiana
• Coordinate local, state, and federal public safety
resources; tear down agency and geographical
boundaries; and foster cooperation between police,
fire, EMS, and other Hoosier first responder and public
safety agencies.
• Mirror the successful locally driven strategy to create a
vision for next generation integrated data
communications.
REGIONAL/COUNTY
INTEROPERABILITY
COMMITTEES
OEC on Regional Interoperability Committees
• Developing and sustaining Regional Interoperability
Committees are crucial to the statewide effort.
These committees will truly allow the effort to be
“practitioner-driven” from the bottom-up
•
The Regional Interoperability Committees play a
pivotal role in developing appropriate SOPs, training
opportunities, and tactical interoperability plans for
their regions’ unique jurisdictions and disciplines
Key Regional Planning Structure
• The Charter,
• By-Laws, and
• Memorandums of Understanding
(MOUs)
• Membership & Representation
Key Administrative Documents
• The Charter defines the group’s purpose, mission
statement, vision, authority, desired outcomes.
• The By-laws include the operating principles and
management of the Group. Many times the by-laws are
incorporated into the Group’s Charter.
• Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) define the
responsibilities of each party in an agreement, provides
the scope and authority of the agreement, clarifies terms
and outlines compliance issues
MEMBERSHIP/REPRESENTATION
“The State must develop a statewide
governance system that incorporates
and respects the input of the Federal,
State, county, city, town, and tribal
practitioner community.”
[DHS/OEC Governance Guide Dec. 2008]
RIC MEMBERSHIP/REPRESENTATION
• Be representative of all first responders, plus emergency
management and Public Information.
• Include appropriate state and federal agency representation,
(State Police, FBI, Secret Service, etc.)
• Include Key Leaders (agency heads with authority-budget
and management-to implement final plan).
• Be representative of all jurisdictions that would be
considered for response.
• If the Region borders another state, invite representatives to
attend the regional meetings.
Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan Guidance Document – January 2009
Recommended Regional Interoperability
Committees’ Membership
Recommended Membership
• Adequate and balanced representation between law
enforcement, fire, EMS and other relevant government
agencies (UASIs, counties, cities, etc.)
• Operational, on-the-ground practitioners
• No single county, jurisdiction, UASI, or organization
represented should have more than one vote
KEY POINTS IN MEMBERSHIP
• The Regional Committee should be of marginal size and
(depending upon your Region) should consist of no more
than 20-30 member organizations representing State,
regional, local, Federal and relevant association/nongovernmental interests.
• It is essential that each organization formally appoint
and empower (in writing) a representative and an
alternate-representative to make decisions on behalf
of their organization.
• It is recommended that representatives should serve at
least a one year term on the RICs.
REGIONAL
INTEROPERABILITY
COMMITTEE MODELS
REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY
COMMITTEE MODEL A
From each county within the Region, the County’s
Chief Administrative Officer or Council is requested
to appoint three representatives:
• 1- Law Enforcement
• 1- Fire
• 1- General Government
• Other voting and Ad-Hoc members would include:
- State Agency Representatives
- Federal Agency Representatives
- Military/National Guard
- Non-Governmental Organizations
REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY
COMMITTEE MODEL B
Each Region has two representatives from the various
disciplines within the Region:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sheriffs
Police Chiefs
Fire Chiefs
EMS Directors
Medical Examiners
911 Dispatch Center Directors
Public Health Directors
Mayors
County Councils
State Agency Representatives
Federal Agency Representatives
Military/National Guard Representatives
INDIANA Homeland Security
Planning Regions
REGIONAL REPRESENTATION SHOULD
INCLUDE:
EMA
FIRE
SHERIFF
MAYOR
HEALTH
EMS
POLICE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE
PUBLIC WORKS
Recommended Regional
Interoperability Committees’
Roles & Responsibilities
Recommended Regional Interoperability
Committees’ (RIC) Roles & Responsibilities
• Outreach
– Provide the SIGB with input for all local
communications interoperability issues.
– Develop a Tactical Interoperable Communications
Plan (TICP) for the Region.
– Obtain consensus among all localities, disciplines and
organizations within the Region regarding
communications interoperability projects.
– Provide opportunities for collaboration among all
jurisdictions and sub-regions within the RIC.
– Educate local policy-makers.
Recommended RIC
Roles & Responsibilities (cont)
• SCIP Programmatic Implementation
– Ensure Regional strategic communications interoperability plan
align with the SCIP and the vision for Statewide interoperability.
– Provide the SIGB with input and data for revision of the SCIP.
– Develop a standing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among all counties and localities with the Region which
addresses sharing resources for Regional Interoperability.
– Develop a process to allow associated equipment to be
purchased collectively ensuring compatibility and favored pricing
throughout the Region.
Recommended RIC
Roles & Responsibilities (cont)
• Grants Management & Policy Development
– Develop grant investment justification for all entities within the
region and provide recommendations to the SIGB for
consideration
– Administer awarded grant funds for Regional projects
Additional RIC
Roles & Responsibilities
• Improve local, state, and federal information sharing
• Identify critical regional infrastructure and potential
terrorist targets
• Prepare regional response plans
• Facilitate mutual aid agreements for communities to
share resources
• Identify capacity needs
• Conduct training and exercises
• Bring Federal Citizen Corps programs to local
communities.
Recommended
Roles & Responsibilities (cont)
The Committee’s Administrative Responsibilities
– Frequency of meetings
– Location of Meetings
– Recording and Distributing Minutes
– Expectations of Hosting Jurisdiction
– Coordinate a list of contact information for all
committee members & meeting locations
Working Groups
• Standing Working Groups
– These Groups are permanent Working Groups that exist as
a resource for the Regional Interoperability Committee
(RIC). Each WG has a chair and vice-chair and the terms
and selection methods of the members and officers are
determined by the RIC.
• Initiative Working Groups
– These Groups exist only to deal with the development and
implementation of a single initiative. Once the initiative is
accomplished, the Working Group is disbanded. Each WG
has a chair and vice-chair and the terms and selection
methods of the members and officers are determined by the
RIC.
Governance Checklist
Governance Checklist
Regional Interoperability Committees Development
 Leverage existing State Homeland Security Regions or State Mutual
Aid boundaries to develop Regional Interoperability Committee
(RIC) borders.
 Leverage appropriate statewide governance structure associations
and the State’s Association of County Executives to reach out to
local policymakers regarding the State’s desire for RICs.
 Host a RIC kick-off meeting in each of the State’s determined
regions.
– Invite local communications interoperability stakeholders from each of
the regions’ counties, large cities, pre-existing communications
operational areas, and Urban Areas.
• Strive for a mix of operational and policy stakeholders representing all
stakeholder disciplines.
– Identify a chairperson and co-chairperson to lead the regional effort.
• Name the chairperson to represent the region on the statewide governance
structure.
Governance Checklist (cont.)
Regional Interoperability Committees Development
(cont.)
 Identify specific committee representatives and ask local and county
leaders to submit formal letters of appointment for these
representatives to the SWIC.
 Develop a charter and rules of operations document for the RIC.
 As appropriate, develop a memorandum of understanding that
establishes the authority of the RIC for all localities and counties to
agree to and sign.
 Develop a regional communications interoperability plan.
 Develop a regional Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan.
Defining Regions
Like Many States, Indiana has
divided the State into Regions for
various purposes.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DISTRICTS
DHS/ISP Overlay
Breakout
• Considering the existing boundaries presented by
the ISP Districts and the Indiana Homeland Security,
list the advantages and disadvantages of using each
one.
• Identify existing coordinating groups within each
district that might provide the nucleus of a regional
interoperability coordinating body.
• List stakeholder agencies and individuals who
should be included in the coordinating body.
Indiana State Police Boundaries
• Advantages
• Disadvantage
Indiana Department of Homeland Security Boundaries
• Advantages
• Disadvantages
Existing Coordinating Group
•
•
•
•
•
Group Name
Current Purpose/Scope
Geographic Area of Interest
Membership
Key Champion
QUESTIONS?
Key Elements of Effective Governance
• Work from the bottom up.
• Actively engage stakeholders.
• Leverage associations or people authorized to speak
on behalf of a larger group of stakeholders
• Promote shared decision-making
• Promote transparency.
• Promote sustainability.
• Establish and articulate a shared understanding of
goals.