Part two follows up our discussion on lack of coordination and collaboration (The Technology Trap, November 2006, Emergency Management) with a roadblock to interoperability: the pervasive use of codes among first responders, and the push to phase them out and use plain language.
During recent catastrophes and disasters -- including Columbine, Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 -- the use by agencies and jurisdictions of different codes for the same language was cited as a major impediment to communications between first responders. Those incidents provide momentum for those pushing for the elimination of codes.
When law enforcement began using 10-codes -- like 10-4 -- in the 1920s and '30s, it was a prudent way to communicate, because police radios had one channel and brevity was necessary to avoid tying up the system.
But the benefits of conciseness gave way to secrecy and a desire to protect one's turf, as individual locales and agencies developed their own unique codes.
Decades later, as agencies from different jurisdictions encounter disaster scenarios, such as 9/11, critical communication often turns into a babel of codes, many of them unique to individual agencies that enjoy having their "own little language."
Now that most acknowledge the importance of interoperability, the move to replace 10-codes with plain language is under way in some quarters, and being pushed hard by the federal government and the voices of interoperability.
The post-mortems from major disasters -- Katrina, Columbine, 9/11 -- all cite inadequate interoperable communications, mostly the result of different agencies using different codes.
During those incidents, and many others, the use of codes hampered communication. Efforts to improve interoperability among first responders must include replacing codes with plain language.
The value of eliminating 10-codes is illustrated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Incident Management System (NIMS), which, among other imperatives, requires the use of plain language in mutual aid situations. And FEMA has said that demonstrating the use of plain language in such situations will be tied to future grant money.
But first responders, mostly law enforcement, have grown accustomed to their codes, and asking them to change is like asking someone to give up an old habit. Some agencies and locales are resisting change, but as one official said: "It really is necessary."
Changing Landscape
"The majority of codes have outlived their usefulness," said Harlin McEwen, chairman of the Communications and Technology Committee at the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "The minute you go off into a strange area, if you're using codes, you're going to be in trouble. And I think people have pretty much come to that realization."
When the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International published a nationwide "10-code card," it gave law enforcement agencies a standard ... but that didn't last long, McEwen said. "People started saying, 'Everybody knows what that code means, so I'm going to change it.' So agency A would change [a code] to something, and agency B would change it to something else. Once that started to happen, there wasn't any standardization."
Though codes made life simpler for law enforcement agencies of years past, during recent catastrophes, when first responders and dispatchers couldn't decipher other agencies' codes, they created confusion at the most inopportune times.
Such was the case when first responders from Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., convened at the Pentagon in the wake of 9/11 -- their codes were of no value because they meant different things to each agency or jurisdiction.
That kind of confusion and other safety concerns prompted first responders in Virginia to eliminate codes in favor of common language. "It wouldn't be a huge roadblock if everybody used consistent codes, but they don't. They all have coded language," said Chris Essid, commonwealth interoperability coordinator for Virginia. "If you look up 9/11, if you look up Katrina, even Columbine, in every one of those, the after-action reports cite interoperable communications. And one of the things noted was that different codes from different law enforcement agencies really hurt the process of communicating. This has been the No. 1 initiative that first responders in Virginia have said you need to do first. This will change the landscape."
Out of Control
In Virginia, use of different codes had spread to the point where dispatchers practically needed an encyclopedia of codes to figure them all out.
"Some agencies, like the Virginia State Police, had more than 100 codes," Essid said. "They had a code for livestock on the highway. They all just got out of control, and that's why first responders have said, 'We really need to get away from these codes because neighboring jurisdictions have different codes,' and they work mutual aid situations on a daily basis."
Essid has an example of a common problem with codes: A Maryland state trooper called in a code to a Montgomery County dispatcher who thought he understood, "Officer needs assistance." The dispatcher sent all units, which arrived on the scene only to find the officer writing a routine traffic ticket. The officer had used a code for a routine traffic stop, but the dispatcher interpreted it differently.
"These are the types of situations folks deal with, with different codes, so we've come up with a common language protocol to use plain language pretty much for everything," Essid said. "We're going to have a few exceptions for first responder safety, but everybody in Virginia will use the same language, which is a huge step forward."
Some fire and emergency medical personnel have grown accustomed to using plain language because of their propensity to deal with more mutual aid situations than law enforcement responds to.
But police have stayed with coded language, Essid said, partly because it gives them the perception of security and secrecy. "But really a lot of the systems they're using are security grade anyway, so they can use the system's security features first to speak in coded language. Plus anybody with a scanner can figure out what the codes mean if you give them a day."
When Virginia convened a study group of first responders to delve into interoperability issues, the group reported that drafting a common language protocol was essential, and that practicing it on a daily basis was the only way to achieve desired results.
The hazard of not practicing using plain language during everyday communications, Essid said, is that first responders aren't accustomed to the new method and fall back on codes in critical situations. "In a bad situation, you're going to revert to what you practice every day. So they [revert to] using codes and have to be asked, 'What does that mean?'"
Al Fluman, acting director at the NIMS integration center, encourages using plain language in everyday communications. "We hope that through the NIMS implementation process, the nation will evolve to the elimination of the 10-codes," he said.
But NIMS stops short of requiring first responders to replace codes for everyday use, and defines compliance as having implemented and practiced a plan to use plain language during a multiagency event.
Though U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff had hinted in 2005 at completely eliminating codes, he later bowed to pressure from law enforcement organizations.
"What we hope to achieve in the future is more meaningful measurements where we can actually determine how effective the implementation actually is," Fluman said in reference to NIMS compliance. "I think we can get to that within a couple of years."
The federal government seems to be hoping that agencies will migrate to common language as Virginia has, and avoid the penalties of not complying with NIMS.
"This is obviously a step in the right direction," Fluman said of the Virginia initiative. "If we can get police, fire and emergency response agencies in Virginia to agree on the use of plain language, then that's a step in the right direction. It's going to take a while though."
It will take time, and the threat of withholding federal grants might not be enough to get some agencies to change their decades-long practices, said Charles Werner, chief of the Charlottesville, Va., Fire Department. "You have some people who are accepting it willingly and going into it; you have some people who say they are accepting it but really aren't; and you have some people who are opposing it, saying, [I] 'Don't really see the value in doing it.'"
Some agencies will resist change until they see that plain language has been wholly instituted and is established, or until they are forced to eliminate codes altogether. Until then, they can say they are compliant with NIMS in terms of using plain language, but does that mean they've really embraced interoperability?
"If you go around asking folks if they're implementing NIMS, they're all going to say yes," said Eric Holdeman, director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management. "But if you start digging deeply -- go out and talk to officers and deputies out on the street, find out what they know, and when it's being used -- that would be a telling aspect of it. If they say, 'We only use it for major incidents,' that's a good bellwether that it probably won't be used very well in that major incident."
Withholding Funds
Fluman said the federal government can restrict grant funding based on progress toward interoperability regardless of compliance or noncompliance with NIMS. And the appearance of eschewing interoperability goals and benchmarks will eventually work against agencies, Werner said.
"If you look at the future of grants -- the new grant process -- you'll see that the bigger picture, the footprint, is the more cooperation you have, the more points you're going to get [from those granting money] in that competitive grant process."
Werner said cooperation with regional partners will also be helpful. "It's hard initially taking steps to do anything if you don't have relationships," he said. "If you have relationships, it comes much easier."
After 9/11, Virginia agencies put their heads together, Werner said, and decided on the best way to collect the federal funds they knew were headed down the pike. "We got together and said, 'We know the money is coming, we don't know how much or where, but let's do our needs assessment and determine what we each need, and let's go after the funds we can get in the most effective way possible by doing it together."'
Other states have taken different approaches than Virginia's, but with less success, McEwen said. "Virginia is doing it the right way. They've set up a state and local committee, and work hard to bring all the people to the table," he said. "Some of the state models have been less than well received because they were developed by the state without local participation. That's a bad idea because they're taking care of their state interest and not the local interest, and they could very well make that happen."
During the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years, agencies certified themselves -- showing their good faith compliance to NIMS. But compliance will soon change to specific performance-based metrics, Fluman said, as FEMA collects data and develops standards.
"By the end of [2006], we'll have a more complete picture of what state and local governments have been doing the last two years with NIMS requirements," Fluman said.
"We're actually moving to a system of metrics to measure all the NIMS implementation activities so we can begin to target our technical assistance, and hopefully our grant money."
Holdeman said punitive measures may be needed to get some to comply. "The teeth in that program will come when they actually withhold funding from jurisdictions that haven't done it, or when they come in and do an audit, and they look at your NIMS compliance, and you're not in compliance, and you have to pay them back."
Equipment Typing, Too
NIMS will also address equipment typing, such as identifying what constitutes a HAZMAT unit -- which can mean different things to different jurisdictions -- and will establish credentialing for personnel who work during catastrophes.
"When you request a bomb squad, what are you getting?" Holdeman asked. "Does it come with a robot? Does it come with one of those containment vessels? Are you getting two bomb techs or one? And do they all have bomb suits? Just what is it? It's the same with HAZMAT: Does it mean you have decontamination capability, or do you have to ask for that in addition to a HAZMAT team? Swift water rescue team: What does that mean? Is it two guys with a rope and life jackets?"
Holdeman said his former assistant director was part of a team handling receipt and allocation of resources for Katrina victims. "She saw a request that came through for something like 20 tankers," Holdeman said. "It went to a guy who worked down there for one of the Southern states, and she said, 'Don't you mean tenders?' In NIMS language those are tenders, not tankers. But he said something like, 'Honey, down here they're tankers, and they're always going to be tankers.'
"All that is critical when you start moving resources around," Holdeman continued. "There are expectations based on common practices locally. The idea is to get your common practices locally in concert with whatever these national standards are or are becoming so you don't experience this type of confusion."
Those definitions will come in due time as FEMA collects data, and develops definitions and standards. "Typing of equipment is an ongoing process," Fluman said. "We've already typed 120 resources and will be adding to that list. We're in the process of establishing the credentialing of personnel for national events."
Just as it took decades for codes to splice into more codes, and just as it took time for equipment to be tagged with different designations in different places, it will take time to pare down the codes and designations agencies have nationwide.
"All of this is not easy," Holdeman said, "because you're taking people out of the mode they've been in for most of their career lives."
But, Essid said, the decision to switch to plain language is a no-brainer and critical to interoperability.
"It really is necessary," he said. "But a lot of times, commonsense things take a lot of time to implement."
