1 / 68

Enhancing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability Indiana

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

Samuel
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability Indiana

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enhancing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications InteroperabilityIndiana May 2009 Office of Emergency Communications

  2. 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

  3. Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability Dennis Nowicki & Woody Sandy Office of Emergency Communications ICTAP May 6, 2009

  4. Interoperability Continuum

  5. 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?

  6. GOVERNANCE?????

  7. 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

  8. Why The Focus on Governance??

  9. 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]

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. The Interoperability Continuum

  13. 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.

  14. Components of a Statewide Governance Structure

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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)

  18. 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 (non-voting) • Private industry (non-voting)

  19. SIGB Primary Responsibilities • Outreach • SCIP Programmatic Implementation • Grants Management and Policy Development • Measurement

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. Bordering States and Federal Partnerships • OEC recommends three basic approaches to ensure statewide coordination with bordering States and Federal partners: • Invite all neighboring States’ Interoperability Coordinators and identify Federal partners to serve as non-voting members on the SIGB. • Create a multi-State interoperable communications consortium. • Coordinate with the FEMA Regional Administrator regarding the activities of FEMA’s RECCWGs.

  24. 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.

  25. INDIANA’S APPROACH TO GOVERNANCE

  26. Indiana’s Governing Body – The Integrated Public Safety Commission (IPSC)

  27. 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)

  28. 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.”

  29. 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

  30. SCIP Analysis: What did we find? Regional Approach Concerns • 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 Advantages • 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

  31. GOVERNANCE IN INDIANA

  32. GOVERNANCE IN INDIANA

  33. Regional Approach?

  34. 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.”

  35. 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.

  36. REGIONAL/COUNTY INTEROPERABILITY COMMITTEES

  37. 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

  38. Key Regional Planning Structure • The Charter, • By-Laws, and • Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) • Membership & Representation

  39. 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

  40. 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]

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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/non-governmental 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.

  44. REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY COMMITTEE MODELS

  45. 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

  46. REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITYCOMMITTEE 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

  47. INDIANA Homeland Security Planning Regions REGIONAL REPRESENTATION SHOULD INCLUDE: EMA EMS FIRE POLICE SHERIFF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAYOR TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE HEALTH PUBLIC WORKS

  48. Recommended Regional Interoperability Committees’ Roles & Responsibilities

More Related