Emergency Alerting: Agencies Need to Address Pending Applications and Monitor Industry Progress on System Improvements

Public alerts and warnings are critical to protect lives and provide information during emergencies, such as wildfires and floods. The IPAWS Modernization Act, enacted in 2016, required FEMA, in consultation and coordination with FCC, to enhance and test the capabilities of IPAWS and increase its adoption among state and local public safety agencies.

GAO was asked to review the federal response to recent natural disasters. This report examines, among other things: (1) trends in the use of IPAWS and (2) actions that FEMA and FCC have taken to modernize IPAWS and increase its adoption.

GAO analyzed relevant data and documentation and assessed FCC's efforts against leading government performance management practices and FEMA and FCC's efforts against internal control standards. GAO interviewed federal officials involved in emergency alerting. GAO also interviewed a non-generalizable selection of IPAWS alerting authorities and applicants, local governments, public safety and industry associations, and communications companies. GAO selected alerting authorities that experienced different types of disasters and threats to public safety from 2017 to 2019.

Use of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) has increased since its launch in 2012. IPAWS enables authorized federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local alerting authorities to send a Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) to mobile devices, such as cell phones and an Emergency Alert System (EAS) alert to media platforms, such as radios and television. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) operates IPAWS and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) establishes rules for telecommunications providers to deliver WEA and EAS alerts. A public safety agency must submit an application and receive approval from FEMA to become an IPAWS alerting authority. In September 2019, more than 1,400 alerting authorities had access to IPAWS, up from fewer than 100 authorities in 2013. All states have at least one state alerting authority, but gaps in local authority access remain (see figure) that could limit the timeliness of alerts as emergencies occur at the local level. GAO found 430 pending IPAWS applications as of September 2019, some of which dated back to 2012. FEMA has not established procedures to prioritize and follow up with applicants and FEMA officials acknowledged that doing so would be beneficial.

FEMA and FCC have taken steps to modernize IPAWS and improve alerting. For example, FEMA has made system upgrades and FCC has made various WEA improvements, such as requiring wireless phone carriers to provide more precise geographic targeting of alerts. Prior to these improvements, officials from many alerting authorities said the inability to geographically target alerts with accuracy made the officials reluctant to send WEA messages. FCC intends to partner with certain localities to test geographic targeting and, according to FCC officials, plans to use other tests to learn about how the improvements perform during emergencies. However, FCC has not developed goals and performance measures for these efforts. Doing so would help FCC more clearly assess whether the WEA improvements are working as intended. Furthermore, having specific performance information could increase alerting authorities' confidence in and use of IPAWS.

GAO is making three recommendations, including that FEMA establish procedures to prioritize and address pending IPAWS applications and that FCC develop goals and performance measures to monitor the WEA improvements. FEMA concurred with GAO's recommendations. FCC stated it was taking steps to gather data to inform the development of metrics as GAO recommended.

Public alerts and warnings can serve to protect lives and provide  information during emergencies. In recent years, the United States has  experienced several major natural disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes,  and floods as well as other threats to public safety and, as we reported in  our 2019 high-risk series, the number of natural disasters is rising.  During such disasters, various authorities such as federal, state, or  county officials can alert the public via the Federal Emergency  Management Agency’s (FEMA) Integrated Public Alert and Warning  System (IPAWS). These authorities can submit an application and  receive approval from FEMA to become an IPAWS “alerting authority.”  IPAWS is intended to integrate the Emergency Alert System (EAS), which  provides alerts through media such as broadcast television and radio,  with other public-alerting tools including the Wireless Emergency Alert  (WEA) program, which provides alerts to mobile devices such as cell  phones, to form a comprehensive public-alerting system. Government  agencies that issue alerts through IPAWS can include emergency  management or law enforcement agencies at the state, county, or city  government level. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System  Modernization Act of 2015 (IPAWS Modernization Act) required FEMA, in  consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to  carry out actions to improve and increase adoption of IPAWS. In  accordance with that Act, and to enhance public safety, the federal  government is attempting to incorporate evolving technology that could  improve emergency alerting and reach more people.

You asked us to review a range of issues related to the federal  government’s disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts  following the 2017 hurricanes and other disasters. This report examines  (1) trends in the use and testing of IPAWS and selected alerting  authorities’ experiences using IPAWS, and (2) actions that FEMA and FCC have taken to modernize IPAWS and increase its adoption, and the  challenges they face.

To address these objectives, we analyzed FEMA data on IPAWS access  and usage throughout the country from 2012 to 2019. We focused on  identifying the authorities that used IPAWS from 2017 to 2019, following  enactment of the IPAWS Modernization Act. We reviewed FEMA’s  processes for ensuring the completeness and reliability of these data and  determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  examining trends in the use of emergency alerts. We conducted seven  case studies of emergency events selected by analyzing alerts that local  authorities issued through IPAWS, FEMA’s list of federally declared  disasters from 2017 to 2019, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration’s (NOAA) list of billion dollar disasters from 2017 to 2019,  and other sources. We selected the case studies to include various areas  of the country that experienced different types of disasters and threats to  public safety during this time. These included natural disasters (wildfires  and an earthquake), weather events (a hurricane and a flood), manmade  disasters (a chemical fire and a power shortage), and a law enforcement  event (a suspicious package). We then interviewed local alerting  authorities in each of these areas.

We reviewed FEMA documents, such as IPAWS strategic plans and a  performance report, and FCC regulations, notices, and comments on new  WEA capabilities. We then assessed this information against statutory  requirements contained in the Act and federal internal control standards.  We focused on four areas of the Act that were key in the implementation  of the program. These areas required FEMA, in consultation and  coordination with FCC, to: ensure that IPAWS is capable of distributing alerts on the basis of  geographic location, risks, and technologies; educate state, tribal, and local governments to understand how  IPAWS works, and how and when to use IPAWS; establish training opportunities for alerting authorities; and conduct nationwide tests of IPAWS alerts.

We also compared FCC’s actions to leading practices based on the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as enhanced  by GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which create a  framework of goal setting and performance management for federal  agencies. While GPRA and GPRAMA apply to the department or agency  level, we have previously reported that their provisions can serve as  leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component  agencies, offices, programs, and projects.

For both objectives, we interviewed officials from FEMA, FCC, NOAA,  and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); state, local and territorial  alerting authorities; IPAWS applicants, representatives from industry  associations, advocacy groups, and companies such as wireless carriers,  internet service providers, internet content providers, IPAWS software  providers, and mobile device manufacturers; and academics. To obtain a  variety of perspectives, we selected industry associations and companies  that represented different telecommunications industry sectors and that  have different roles in emergency alerting (broadcasting, cable, wireless,  internet service, and application developers) and academics with different  areas of expertise (public health, engineering, natural hazards, disaster  preparedness, rural emergency management, and communication). The  results of these interviews are not generalizable to all stakeholders, but  provide insight on the use of IPAWS and related emergency alerting  issues. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater  detail.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2019 to February  2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In 2004, FEMA initiated the IPAWS program to integrate EAS and other  public-alerting systems into a larger, more comprehensive public-alerting  system. As shown in figure 1, IPAWS serves as a centralized gateway to  deliver alerts to the public. After an alerting authority creates and sends  an alert to IPAWS, the system then routes the alert to the public using  one or more of the following pathways:

Emergency Alert System. Allows authorized federal, state, territorial,  tribal, and local government agencies to use EAS media platforms— including radio and television—to send alerts. IPAWS also allows the  U.S. President to activate EAS to communicate to the public through  all EAS media platforms during a national emergency.

Wireless Emergency Alerts. Allows authorized federal, state,  territorial, tribal, and local government agencies to send text-like  messages to mobile devices in geographically selected areas  as  one-way cellular broadcasts. Various factors  affect whether a WEA  message will be received on a mobile device, such as whether the  device is WEA-capable and within range of a cell tower where a  participating wireless carrier provides WEA services to its  customers. According to CTIA, a wireless industry association, more  than 100 nationwide and regional wireless carriers participate and  have the capability to provide WEA messages to 99 percent of  American wireless subscribers.

IPAWS alert feed for internet services. Allows internet companies  authorized by FEMA—such as Google, Facebook, and The Weather  Channel—to retrieve IPAWS alerts and distribute them to social  media, websites, applications, and subscription services.

Government agencies and industry organizations play different roles in  providing, protecting, and leveraging the nation’s emergency alerting  capability.

FEMA. FEMA is responsible for operating, maintaining, and  administering access to IPAWS, including managing the application  process. As discussed earlier, public safety agencies that wish to  use IPAWS must apply to FEMA to become approved alerting  authorities. FEMA, in consultation and coordination with FCC, must  carry out various actions to modernize and implement IPAWS. For  example, FEMA must ensure IPAWS can send alerts to a specific  geographic location and to multiple communications systems and  technologies, educate government users of IPAWS and provide  training opportunities to them, and conduct nationwide tests of  IPAWS, among other things. Legislation was enacted that expands  FEMA’s responsibilities for IPAWS.

FCC. FCC creates the rules for EAS and WEA, the two primary  alerting pathways authorities use to send public alerts through  IPAWS. FCC establishes the technical standards, procedures, and  testing protocols for EAS participants. FCC also manages an online  system used to collect and analyze results of nationwide EAS tests.  FCC establishes technical requirements participating wireless carriers  must follow for delivering WEA messages to WEA-capable mobile  devices.

Federal alerting authorities. Authorized federal alerting authorities  may create alerts and use IPAWS to send alerts to the public. For  example, the National Weather Service (NWS), within NOAA, uses  software NWS developed to issue WEAs for severe weather risks  such as flash floods and tornadoes. USGS intends to send  earthquake-related alerts through IPAWS but as of September 2019,  had yet to send such an alert through IPAWS. USGS has partnered  with Washington, Oregon, and California to test and implement a  West Coast earthquake early warning system called “ShakeAlert” that  is intended to send WEA messages to mobile devices several  seconds after the initiation of an earthquake.

State, territorial, tribal, and local alerting authorities. According to  FEMA policy, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies  first complete FEMA’s application process to gain access to IPAWS  and obtain the proper authorization to issue alerts for specific  geographic jurisdictions. As discussed earlier, government agencies  that issue alerts through IPAWS can include emergency management  or law enforcement agencies at the state, county, or city government  level. Non-governmental organizations such as a local emergency  management association may be granted an authority to issue alerts  through IPAWS with approval from FEMA or an alerting authority. For  information on FEMA’s IPAWS application process, see figure 2  below.

Industry. Industry develops and owns the infrastructure that enables  alerts to be created, authenticated, and delivered to the public.  Alerting software companies provide software tools that allow alerting  authorities to create and send alert messages via the internet to  IPAWS. Alerting software companies also provide “opt-in” or  subscription-based alerting services to public safety agencies that  allow the public to sign up to receive alerts. EAS participants that  transmit EAS messages include radio and television broadcasters,  cable operators, wireline video service providers, satellite radio  providers, and direct broadcast satellite providers. Wireless carriers  operate wireless networks that allow alerting authorities to send one- way geographically targeted WEA messages to WEA-capable mobile  devices. Manufacturers develop, test, and provide WEA-capable  mobile devices, in coordination with participating wireless carriers, to  consumers. Internet and web services companies may also distribute  alert information from an IPAWS alert feed to internet applications,  websites, or social media.

We have previously reviewed FEMA’s progress in implementing IPAWS.  In 2013, we found that FEMA had taken actions to improve the  capabilities for IPAWS and to increase federal, state, and local  capabilities to alert the public, but barriers remained to fully implement an  integrated system. We made six recommendations, including that FEMA  work with FCC to establish guidance for states to fully implement and test  IPAWS components and implement a strategy for regular nationwide  testing. The agencies implemented all of the report’s recommendations.

IPAWS Usage and Testing Have Increased but Parts of the Country Lack IPAWS Access at the Local Level

Substantially More Local Authorities Have Access to IPAWS since 2013, but Gaps Remain at the Local Level

Our analysis of FEMA data found 1,401 alerting authorities at the federal,  state, local, territorial, and tribal levels had access to IPAWS to send  alerts as of September 2019, a substantial increase from 2013 (soon after  it became operational) when fewer than 100 authorities had access.  According to FEMA officials, nearly 70 percent of the nation’s population  is covered by a local alerting authority that can use IPAWS to send alerts.  Further, according to FEMA documentation, from a state authority  perspective, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the  U.S. Virgin Islands have at least one state-level authority that can use  IPAWS to send alerts to any locality within that state or territory.

Local authority access to IPAWS to send alerts varies, however, as  FEMA officials stated that about two-thirds of the nation’s 3,000 counties  do not have access to IPAWS to send alerts. Although access to IPAWS  at the state level enables alerts to be sent, for example, to jurisdictions  that may have lost their capability during an emergency, gaps in access  to IPAWS for local officials could limit the timeliness of alerts as  emergencies occur. For example, officials from an alerting authority told  us that with the exception of alerts issued by NWS, all emergencies start  locally. If a locality does not have access to issue an alert through  IPAWS, information must be communicated from the locality to an  authorized state official to issue the alert, which could result in delays in  getting critical information to the public.

Reasons for this gap at the local level could be related to a variety of  factors. For example, some counties may still be in the process of  applying for access. Other counties may not be able to gain access to  IPAWS due to state or local laws, or a state’s EAS communications plan  may specify that only certain types of agencies can issue alerts. For  example, state EAS communications plans may authorize the governor of  the state, an emergency management office, state law enforcement  agency, or a non-governmental organization as the authorized agencies  for sending alerts. In addition, an academic who specializes in rural  emergency management told us that unfunded staff positions in  emergency management are commonplace in rural areas and the areas  may lack funding to apply for IPAWS access. Figure 3 highlights areas of  the country that were covered by a local or tribal alerting authority as of  September 2019.

Wireless Emergency Alerts Have Become the Primary Alerting Method and Usage Has Increased

Alerting authorities at the state, territorial, and local levels have  increasingly used WEA messages since 2012 (see fig. 4). In addition,  these authorities used more WEA messages than EAS alerts each year,  with a large difference occurring between 2017 to 2018, when WEA  messages increased by 89 percent while EAS alerts increased by 35  percent.

While usage of WEA and EAS by state, territorial, and local authorities  has generally increased since 2012, our analysis of FEMA data found that  this increase was driven by a small group of alerting authorities in certain  parts of the country. Some locations may be more prone to experience  certain types of emergencies, particularly weather related emergencies  such as hurricanes. However, the potential exists in any location for an  alert to be sent to the public if an alerting authority determines an  imminent threat to public safety exists. Specifically, our analysis of WEA  alert data from April 1, 2012 to October 1, 2019 found:

A total of 236 of the 1,372 state, territorial, and local alerting  authorities sent a WEA message.

A total of 69 of the 1,372 state, territorial, and local alerting authorities  accounted for nearly 80 percent of WEA messages sent at those  levels.

Most of the country has received a low number (fewer than 10) or no  alerts sent by state, territorial, and local authorities, while limited parts  of the country have received higher numbers of alerts (see fig. 5).

At the federal level, our analysis of FEMA data found that NWS sends the  vast majority of WEA messages sent through IPAWS, a number that from  April 1, 2012 to October 1, 2019 totaled more than 46,000. The most  common WEA messages sent by NWS were related to flash flooding  (28,640), tornadoes (15,985), hurricanes (571), and dust storms (386).  An academic we interviewed said it is important to note that local alerting  authorities use the NWS warnings to issue alerts instructing the public to  take specific protective actions, for example, to evacuate using certain  roads. For more information on when a person may receive a WEA  message on a WEA-capable mobile device through IPAWS, see  appendix II.

NWS uses multiple alerting mechanisms to  send alert messages to people around the  country. As one of its mechanisms, NWS uses  the Integrated Public Alert and Warning  System to send Wireless Emergency Alert  messages to mobile  devices in areas facing  w eather risks, such as this geographically  targeted message to a cell phone in  Washington D.C.  in July 2019.

To test the capability and effectiveness of IPAWS, FEMA, FCC, NWS,  and state and local public safety agencies have carried out nationwide  and localized alert tests since 2016.

Nationwide EAS Tests: FEMA, in coordination with FCC, conducted four  annual nationwide EAS tests from 2016 to 2019. The tests assessed  how well EAS alerts were received and retransmitted using the two ways  an EAS alert can be delivered: (1) over the internet via IPAWS and (2)  through the legacy “over the air” radio and television broadcast stations.  According to FCC’s analysis, about 76 percent of an estimated 26,000  EAS participants took part in the 2018 test, with about 96 percent of  participants reporting they received the test alert. While the vast majority  of EAS participants reported no complications, FCC’s analysis identified  some problems with the 2018 test, including EAS participants reporting  audio quality issues (less than 2 percent), EAS equipment issues, out-of- date software, user error, and complications accessing IPAWS (less than  1 percent each). To help address such issues, FCC provided advisories  in advance of the next nationwide EAS test. In addition, FEMA has  publicly identified how FCC could improve future nationwide tests,  including improving the accuracy of reporting and other audio and visual  technical issues. FEMA officials said they are working with FCC to  resolve technical issues found in recent tests.

Nationwide WEA  Tests: FEMA, in coordination with FCC, carried out the  first nationwide WEA test in October 2018. FEMA sent a test alert through  IPAWS to participating wireless carriers, which then transmitted the alert  to their subscribers’ WEA-capable devices across the country. FEMA  officials viewed the first nationwide WEA test as a success with regard to  the technical execution of delivering a nationwide WEA message via  IPAWS. However, officials acknowledged a main lesson from the test was  a need to collect data on how effectively WEA messages are being  received.

While FCC collects EAS test data to assess how well the EAS test was  received and retransmitted, a similar mechanism does not exist for the  WEA pathway. According to wireless industry representatives we  interviewed, the WEA system was designed to use a one-way broadcast  cellular technology that prevents the wireless network from collecting data  from mobile devices. Instead, FCC has used voluntary public responses,  media reports, and informal surveys conducted by state and local public  safety agencies to assess results. For example, FCC’s report on the 2018  WEA test found that media sources reported inconsistent WEA delivery in  different parts of the country and that informal surveys conducted by state  and local agencies showed variability  in WEA delivery. FCC also  reported that issues were found during the WEA test related to duplicate  messages and audio and vibration cadence that could have affected  individuals with disabilities. At the time of our review, FEMA officials  said they were preparing to conduct the next nationwide WEA test in late  2020 and developing a survey to accompany the test to collect data on  WEA message delivery.

The District of Columbia  Homeland Security  and Emergency Management Agency used  the Integrated Public Alert and Warning  System to send a geographically targeted  WEA test to mobile  devices in Washington,  D.C. in June 2019. owned cell phones received the test alert within a range of 6 seconds and  several minutes.

In May 2019, FCC rules initially went into effect that will allow alerting  authorities to send WEA tests to the public without FCC approval—called  State/Local WEA Test. Participating wireless carriers are required to  provide the capability, but subscribers must manually opt-in to receive  these alerts on their mobile devices. In November 2019, a major wireless  carrier obtained a waiver from FCC to conduct two WEA tests under  these rules to assess the carriers’ ability to perform enhanced geo- targeting for WEA messages.

Alerting Authorities Cited Benefits and Limitations of Using IPAWS during Recent Emergencies

Officials from alerting authorities we contacted for seven case studies on  the use of IPAWS cited benefits and limitations of using the system during  recent disasters such as wildfires, a hurricane, a flood, an earthquake, a  chemical fire, a power shortage, and a law enforcement event.

Benefits. Officials from authorities we interviewed said that IPAWS has a  wide reach because most people have mobile devices to receive WEA  messages, and WEA can also reach visitors to their area. Compared with  opt-in alerting systems that can have a low percentage of subscribers,  officials from alerting authorities we interviewed said that IPAWS provides  an opportunity to reach more people during emergencies. In addition,  they said that states can act as back-ups for local authorities that have  lost their alerting capabilities to help ensure that alerts can be sent. Our  analysis found that state and local alerting authorities used IPAWS to  send alerts regarding a variety of emergencies, examples of which are  shown in table 1. Alerting authority officials also said they plan to use  IPAWS in a variety of ways in the future, including for mudslides, rip  currents, hazardous materials incidents, and law enforcement  emergencies such as terrorism or active shootings.

Limitations. Officials from alerting authorities we contacted cited three  main limitations. First, they said it was difficult to write effective WEAs  within the 90 character limit. For example, officials from an authority said  that within the character limit it is difficult to explain the risk, who the alert  is from, and what the public should do. As we discuss later, FCC has  expanded the character limit. Second, officials expressed concerns about  the ability to target WEAs to specific geographic areas, which caused  some to lack confidence in the system or not use it at all. Third, officials  from alerting authorities said that because WEA is a one-way  communication system, they do not know if the alerts reached the  intended public. For example, officials from one authority described  sending an evacuation order but not knowing whether people in the  intended area received it. In another example, while an alert was helpful  in alerting the public about a suspicious package, officials from one  authority said the alert was received 4 miles beyond its intended target,  which led them to speculate about the number of people who received the  alert.

More information about the use of IPAWS during events we selected as  case studies is provided in appendix III.

FEMA and FCC Have Taken Steps to Improve Alerting but Face Challenges Monitoring New Capabilities and Managing Pending Applications FEMA and FCC Have Taken Actions to Improve Alerting Capabilities

FEMA has taken recent steps to modernize IPAWS by implementing  various improvements and exploring new technologies. For example,  FEMA is moving IPAWS to a cloud-based data center to enhance the  system’s availability and is modernizing the stations that serve as the  main broadcast source for national emergency alerts, according to  FEMA’s 2018 performance report for IPAWS. In addition, officials  described how FEMA has assisted with developing technical standards  for new IPAWS capabilities and engaged the private sector to explore  possibilities for integrating alerts into technologies such as digital  billboards, Braille reader devices, and internet-connected devices in  homes and vehicles.

FCC has published rules that require participating carriers to implement  new or improved capabilities for wireless alerts sent through IPAWS.

Improved alert message content and capabilities. FCC required  wireless carriers to support several capabilities to help alerting  authorities communicate clearly and effectively, including the ability to  send longer messages (expanding the limit from 90 to 360 characters)  and the ability to send alerts in Spanish. Initially,  FCC set a May 1,  2019, deadline for carriers to support all of these capabilities but later  extended it to December 19, 2019, to allow time for carriers to  complete testing with IPAWS. FEMA completed the necessary  updates to support formal testing with the IPAWS gateway in mid- November 2019. Two academics we interviewed who have  researched emergency alerting told us that alerts with expanded  character length are more effective in prompting people to take  protective actions, compared with shorter ones. Other new capabilities  required include “alert prioritization,” meaning that alerts must be  displayed as soon as they are received and a new “public safety  message” category for advisories that prescribe one or more actions  likely to save lives or safeguard property during an emergency (e.g.,  boil water notices, emergency shelter locations). As discussed  earlier, a state/local WEA test option was also required to allow  alerting authorities to send test messages to a subset of the public  without prior approval from FCC.

More precise geographic targeting. FCC required carriers to deliver  alerts to areas that match the targeted geographic area, to within one- tenth of a mile, a capability that FCC calls enhanced geo-targeting.

FCC initially required carriers to implement enhanced geo-targeting by  November 30, 2019, but later extended it to December 19, 2019, to  allow time for carriers to complete testing with IPAWS, as with the  capabilities discussed above. FEMA completed the necessary  updates to support formal testing with the IPAWS gateway in mid- November 2019. Previously carriers have been required to transmit  alerts to the geographic area that best approximates the emergency  area identified by the alerting authority. As FCC’s chairman has  explained, these less precise geographic targeting capabilities can  result in overbroad alerting, where people may receive the alert even  though they are located well outside of the target area. Several local  WEA tests in 2018 found overbroad alerting when targeting specific  geographic locations. Officials from many alerting authorities we  interviewed told us they are concerned about the inability to  geographically target alerts with accuracy, which can make some  reluctant to send WEA messages. According to several wireless and  device industry representatives we interviewed and letters that  wireless carriers have sent FCC, enhanced geo-targeting is a  particularly challenging capability to implement because changes  must also be made by different sectors of industry—such as  manufacturers of cell phone handsets and chipsets. Some industry  representatives also told us that only some, mostly newer model cell  phones will be able to receive the more precise geo-targeted alerts  and that many older devices currently in the population will not  support this new capability because it requires a new chipset.

Other recent improvements. FCC has also required implementation  of new alert content and categories, such as:  “Clickable” links—Embedded links in alerts so people receiving  them can click on the link to see a photo of a suspect, for  example. This capability has been implemented.

Blue Alert—A new type of alert to notify the public of threats to law  enforcement and to request help apprehending dangerous  suspects. This capability has been implemented.

24-hour alert retrieval—Alerts must remain available on devices  for 24 hours after receipt, or until the consumer chooses to delete  them. FCC required carriers to implement this capability by  November 30, 2019, and FEMA officials told us this capability did  not require technical changes to the IPAWS gateway.

Although FEMA and FCC are taking actions to improve alerting  capabilities, developments in technology are changing the alerting  landscape. Our analysis of agency documents and interviews with public- safety stakeholders indicated two emerging and unresolved areas.

Multimedia. In 2018, an FCC advisory committee recommended that  alerting systems should carry graphics and other multimedia. For  example, four public-safety stakeholders told us it would be helpful to  include multimedia (e.g., photos and maps) directly within WEA  messages. Doing so would allow the public to see the information  without clicking an embedded link. In 2015 and 2016, FCC sought  comment on the technical feasibility of including multimedia and in  2018 issued another public notice on the topic to refresh the record.  The proceeding remains open and FCC has not taken additional  action.

Internet streaming. The public may not receive broadcast EAS alerts  when watching television that is streamed through an internet  connection. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that 28  percent of American adults and 61 percent of adults age 18 to 29 said  that streaming is their primary way of watching television.  Representatives from two internet service providers told us they have  developed solutions that enable customers to receive EAS alerts  when the customers are using their applications to stream content.  However, EAS alerts may not override other streaming services such  as video and gaming because of technical limitations and the limited  information that content service providers maintain about a user’s  location, according to industry representatives. For example,  representatives from an association representing internet companies  told us that providing emergency alerts through internet streaming  services presents technological challenges and that its members  would have concerns about collecting locational information about  their customers. The effect of potentially not receiving an EAS alert  while streaming is unclear. While more Americans are streaming their  television and multimedia, many use a second screen such as a cell  phone while watching television and could receive any relevant alert  as a WEA message. A 2018 Nielsen survey found that 45 percent of  respondents very often or always use a second screen such as a  smartphone while watching television. FCC has sought comment  about this issue in general. FCC officials told us that extending EAS  to new technologies for viewing video content raises legal and  technical considerations and that they continue to evaluate the  efficacy, costs, and benefits of doing so.

FCC Lacks Goals and Measures for Monitoring Performance of Required Capabilities

Pursuant to statute, FCC is responsible for establishing technical  standards and requirements for WEA, as discussed earlier. Further,  FCC’s 2018–2022 strategic plan identified a performance goal to facilitate  the effectiveness and reliability of EAS and WEA, and following a  nationwide test in 2018 FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security  Bureau recommended that additional measures be taken to improve the  reliability and effectiveness of WEA. Developing goals and performance  measures is consistent with leading practices for performance management. GPRA, as amended and expanded by GPRAMA,  creates a  framework for articulating goals and measures that can provide federal  agencies with a clear direction for successful implementation of activities  and improve the efficiency and accountability of agencies’ efforts.

Goals explain the purpose and intended results that a program seeks  to achieve in its work.

Performance measures that are linked to goals allow a program to  track the progress it is making toward achieving its goals.

While GPRA and GPRAMA  apply to the department or agency level, we  have previously reported that their provisions can serve as leading  practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies,  offices, programs, and projects. Additionally,  federal internal control  standards discuss the importance of goals, stating that management  should define objectives clearly. This involves defining objectives in  specific and measurable terms so that they can be easily understood and  performance toward achieving those objectives can be assessed. Federal  internal control standards also state that measurable objectives should be  specific and stated in quantitative or qualitative  form.

FCC has required carriers to implement new WEA capabilities and taken  steps to understand more about WEA performance, but FCC has not  developed goals and performance measures to help monitor how well the  new capabilities perform during emergencies. Instead, we found FCC  has taken an ad-hoc approach to monitoring WEA performance. In  particular, when we asked whether FCC planned to develop standards or benchmarks to measure WEA performance, FCC officials said they intend  to use certain test results, as discussed below, to understand more about  WEA performance.

Partnered geo-targeting tests. FCC intends to partner with localities  to test the accuracy of participating wireless providers’ enhanced geo- targeting capabilities starting in early 2020. Four localities have  applied to participate as of November 2019, according to FCC  officials. To perform each test, FCC and its partner at each given  location intend to use online surveys to collect information on which  individuals receive the test alert and under what circumstances.  However, at the time of our review we found that while FCC has  broadly identified the purpose of the tests as testing the accuracy of  enhanced geo-targeting, it has not defined specific, measurable goals  that are specific to this testing effort. For example, FCC has not stated  what would be an appropriate success rate for enhanced geo- targeting accuracy. We also found that FCC has not connected its  survey questions to specific performance measures that could be  compared across test locations. According to FCC officials, FCC has  not announced whether it will compare results across localities or use  specific performance measures to assess geo-targeting performance.  FCC officials said they have no plans to test other new WEA  capabilities, including the expanded message length, and that at the  time of our review it was too early to say how results from the  partnered tests would be analyzed and shared more broadly with  public-safety stakeholders.

State and local tests. As discussed earlier, FCC officials told us that  39 alerting authorities at the state and local level received approval  from FCC to conduct their own WEA tests as of November 2019. FCC  officials also told us that that they encourage alerting authorities that  seek approval for WEA tests to share performance data with FCC.  According to FCC officials, FCC has received data from nine localities  as of November 2019 and will use the test results internally to develop  a broader understanding of WEA performance. When we asked what  FCC has learned from the data, FCC officials said they have received  some results but are still in the process of analyzing them.

By developing goals and performance measures for its efforts to monitor  the new WEA capabilities, FCC would have clearer direction for what it  plans to achieve and more specific means to assess the performance of  the capabilities. For example, performance measures related to FCC’s  planned survey questions for geo-targeting could include the percentage  of participants who received the alert and the percentage who received  the alert within the target geographic area. Another performance measure  for the new capabilities could include the extent to which messages of up  to 360 characters are fully or partially displayed on a mobile device, or not  at all, for example. Without specific goals and performance measures,  FCC will have difficulty knowing if it is making progress toward its stated  strategic goal of ensuring the effectiveness of WEA. The results of data  collected on performance measures could provide assurance that new  WEA capabilities are working as intended during emergencies, or could  point to areas where performance is lacking and where FCC might need  to take other actions such as working with industry to resolve issues,  updating WEA requirements, or conducting additional analysis.  Monitoring  performance is all the more important because of uncertainty  about the extent to which all cell phones will be able to receive WEA  messages with the new capabilities.

In addition, new capabilities have the potential to make WEA a more  powerful tool and possibly further increase its use. Our analysis shows  that WEA has outpaced the use of EAS as an alerting method, and  according to the Pew Research Center, Americans are increasingly  connected to digital devices, with 96 percent of American adults owning  cell phones in 2019 and 81 percent owning smartphones. However, as  discussed earlier, officials from many alerting authorities we interviewed  had concerns with WEA performance. Many officials from alerting  authorities told us that they were looking forward to the new capabilities— including enhanced geo-targeting and expanded message length—which  will improve their ability to alert the public. Having specific performance  information about the effectiveness of these capabilities could increase  alerting authorities’ confidence in the system and help make these  authorities more informed users of IPAWS.

FEMA Provides Training and Resources but Lacks Documented Next Steps to Address Authorities’ Challenges

The IPAWS Modernization Act requires FEMA to instruct and educate  federal, state, tribal, and local government officials in the use of IPAWS.  FEMA has multiple efforts underway to educate and train alerting  authorities about IPAWS.

Training. Through FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute, FEMA  offers training courses on IPAWS, including a mandatory course that  IPAWS applicants must take before they can become authorized  users of the system. FEMA is revising its training, according to FEMA  officials, and they estimated that the new courses will be available  midway through 2020.

Online resources. On a regular basis, FEMA emails tips and  conducts webinars, which are recorded and made available online.  FEMA has developed a library of IPAWS resources, including a toolkit  and fact sheets. FEMA also created an online collaboration group for  IPAWS users to share information and best practices and plans to  expand the capabilities of this group, according to FEMA.

Testing environment. FEMA created a controlled testing  environment called the IPAWS lab that alerting authorities can use to  send test alerts and receive hands-on or remote assistance from  FEMA staff. According to FEMA, demand for IPAWS lab support has  increased, and FEMA hosted more than 200 sessions with IPAWS  users in calendar year 2018. FEMA implemented a new requirement  in October 2019 for all alerting authorities to send a monthly test alert  using the IPAWS lab and upgraded the IPAWS lab environment to  support the increased testing.

In-person presentations. FEMA officials regularly present at public  safety conferences and other events and use these opportunities to  share information about IPAWS and encourage potential new users.

FEMA has also assessed alerting authorities’ educational needs, but it  has not fully addressed the recommendations it identified to support these  needs or developed plans for ongoing assessments. In 2017 FEMA  conducted an analysis—interviewing a sample of alerting authorities and  assessing their responses to identify common challenges in using  IPAWS. FEMA found that alerting authorities need more training and  practice in using IPAWS and experience challenges with using their  alerting software, among other things. Our interviews with selected  alerting authorities and software providers revealed similar concerns,  including that for some a lack of confidence is a potential barrier in using  IPAWS. For example, representatives from two of the three alerting  software providers we interviewed told us they have issued alerts through  IPAWS at the request of their customers. According to these  representatives, alerting authorities turn to their software providers as  experienced users of the system because authorities have limited local  staff, or if they cannot send an alert because of a technical reason. Four  academics we interviewed said that FEMA should provide additional  training for alerting authorities that is focused on drafting effective  messages. Less than 20 percent of state, territorial, and local alerting  authorities have sent WEA messages as of October 1, 2019. The limited  use of IPAWS could lead to decreased proficiency or confidence. For  example, an official from one alerting authority told us the jurisdiction did  not use IPAWS at first because officials were not confident about using it.

Our analysis of available information found that FEMA has addressed 4 of  the 31 recommendations in its 2017 analysis. For example, FEMA revised  its IPAWS training and added software requirements to its memorandum  of agreement with alerting authorities. However, the extent to which  FEMA has addressed other potentially useful recommendations is not  clear because FEMA has not developed a plan to address the  recommended actions. For example, one priority recommendation was to  create skills checklists that provide a complete inventory of the types of  skills alerting authorities need to use IPAWS. FEMA officials told us they  had addressed many of the challenges identified in the 2017 analysis,  including developing some timelines. However, FEMA did not provide  documentation about how all the recommendations would be addressed.

FEMA officials also told us they intend to periodically obtain information  from alerting authorities about their needs and have begun another round  of interviews with alerting authorities. However, these plans have not  been documented. FEMA officials said they also use other methods to  keep abreast of educational needs and challenges, such as attending  conferences and reaching out to their contacts at emergency  management associations that represent alerting authorities. In addition,  alerting authorities send comments and feedback via email, according to  FEMA officials. However, FEMA did not provide documentation about  how it uses information obtained from these methods.

As discussed earlier, FEMA is required by statute to educate federal,  state, tribal, and local government officials. FEMA’s IPAWS strategic plan  also includes a goal to make emergency alerting more effective, which as  the plan explains, requires FEMA to engage non-federal alerting  authorities to build competence and promote hands-on familiarity with  IPAWS. The FEMA National Advisory Council has emphasized these  points, recommending that FEMA improve alerting authorities’ ability to  transmit effective alerts by developing and providing education, guidance,  and best practices on how to use IPAWS as effective emergency  messaging. Federal standards for internal control state that  management should externally communicate necessary quality  information. Open two-way external reporting lines allow for this  communication. For example, management obtains quality information  from external stakeholders—which in FEMA’s case would be information  from alerting authorities—using established reporting lines. Additionally,  federal internal control standards state that documentation provides a  means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having  that knowledge limited to a few personnel.

Documenting how FEMA plans to address key recommendations from its  2017 analysis could help guide its efforts to educate alerting authorities  and hold it accountable for addressing identified needs. Without a  documented plan, FEMA may not systematically implement each  recommendation, which could result in alerting authorities continuing to  struggle with known challenges. In addition, by continuing its analytical  efforts and implementing a mechanism to regularly obtain and analyze  alerting authorities’ needs, FEMA could learn if these needs are changing  and develop educational efforts to address them. Taking such actions will  help FEMA enhance alerting authorities’ proficiency with, and confidence  in, using IPAWS.

FEMA Has Taken Steps to Increase IPAWS Adoption but Faces Challenges Addressing Pending Applications

FEMA has identified increasing adoption of the system and assisting  authorities in gaining access to IPAWS as strategic goals. In addition, in  June 2019 the FEMA Administrator issued a “call to action” policy  memorandum to FEMA’s regional offices to help improve IPAWS  adoption at the local level. As described earlier, FEMA has taken various  steps in recent years to increase the adoption of IPAWS, for example, by  informing local public safety agencies about IPAWS at conferences and  encouraging them to apply for access to the system. In addition, FEMA  has developed resources that are available on the IPAWS website that  describe the expectations and steps for how a public safety agency may  apply to become an IPAWS alerting authority. The number of authorities  completing an initial step in the application process to obtain access to  IPAWS has increased in recent years from 52 applicants in 2017 to 104  applicants in 2018 and to 122 applicants from January 2019 to  September 2019.

However, while more agencies are starting the application process, our  analysis of FEMA data found that 430 IPAWS applications were pending  as of September 2019, some of which dated back to 2012. Our analysis  found that 152 applicants, or about one-third of the 430 applications,  began the process (initiated the memorandum of agreement process)  from 2012 to 2016. In addition, some applicants had yet to complete the  key initial steps in the process. For example, after completing the required  IPAWS web-based training and procuring IPAWS compatible software,  public safety agencies must return a signed memorandum of agreement  to FEMA before the application can move forward.

We found that FEMA sent a draft memorandum of agreement to 108  applicants between 2014 and 2017 that had not yet returned the  agreement to the agency as of September 2019. This could indicate that  several applicants may be stalled in the early stages of the process and  may benefit from FEMA’s assistance in completing the application or  answering questions. FEMA officials said that once a completed  application is received, approving it should take about 30 days but that  factors outside FEMA’s control can contribute to processing delays and  thereby increase the number of pending applications. For example, FEMA  officials said it is out of their control when applicants do not return signed  memorandums of agreement because that step of the process is handled  at the state and local level. Representatives from an IPAWS applicant we  interviewed said the amount of time it took to receive approval from the  state authority was one of the reasons that their application was delayed.

Although delays involving  certain applications may be out of FEMA’s  control, FEMA may be able to help other applicants. However, FEMA  provided no evidence that it had followed up with applicants, when it had  last contacted them, or how follow up should be prioritized. FEMA officials  said one employee serves as a primary lead for managing the entire  application process, which would require a labor-intensive process of  following up with hundreds of applicants. FEMA officials said that  managing pending applications is a challenge for the IPAWS office due to  resource constraints.

To help address these constraints, in 2019, FEMA awarded a contract to  begin developing a new tool with the goal of streamlining FEMA’s  management of applications. Officials said they anticipate the tool,  estimated to be available in early 2020, will help them better manage the  pending applications and conduct outreach as well as move new  applications through the process. In 2016 FEMA conducted a study of  the IPAWS application process and highlighted certain factors that  contributed to an increasing backlog and response time, including FEMA  officials not knowing that a follow up task for an applicant was waiting to  be addressed. The study further indicated that determining the next step  was manual and often reactive. Officials also said that staff will be able to  run an aging report on applications to help them prioritize follow-up  efforts. However, the agency has not established procedures to prioritize  and follow up with applicants. FEMA officials acknowledged that  establishing procedures to prioritize and follow up on the in-process  applications would be beneficial. While these applications are pending,  people in areas that are not covered by IPAWS authorities may not  receive critical alerts and warnings from local authorities through IPAWS.

Effective emergency alerting is vital to helping save lives and property  during natural disasters and other threats to public safety, highlighting the  importance of IPAWS as a way to disseminate critical information.  However, FCC lacks specific goals and performance measures and  FEMA lacks plans and processes, which may contribute to decreased  confidence in and use of IPAWS by alerting authorities. In particular,  because FCC does not have specific goals and performance measures to  monitor WEA improvements, FCC will have difficulty assuring that these  improvements are working as intended during emergencies and  identifying areas where performance is lacking, which could undermine  authorities’ confidence in using IPAWS. In addition, because FEMA has  not documented next steps or plans for educating alerting authorities and  establishing a process to regularly assess their educational needs, some  authorities may continue to lack proficiency and confidence in using  IPAWS. Furthermore, absent a strategy to address the substantial  number of pending IPAWS applications, FEMA’s efforts to increase  IPAWS adoption and expand alerting coverage are hindered.

We are making a total of three recommendations, including one to FCC  and two to FEMA. Specifically:  The Chairman of FCC should develop specific, measurable goals and  performance measures for its efforts to monitor the performance of new  WEA capabilities, such as enhanced geo-targeting and expanded alert  message length. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of the IPAWS program should document how it plans to  address key actions needed to educate alerting authorities in their use of  IPAWS and implement a mechanism that will allow FEMA to regularly and  systematically obtain and analyze feedback on alerting authorities’  educational needs. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of the IPAWS program should establish procedures to  prioritize pending IPAWS applications and to follow up with applicants to  address these applications. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to FCC, the Departments of Homeland  Security (FEMA), Commerce (NOAA), and the Interior (USGS) for review  and comment. FCC and the Department of Homeland Security provided  written comments, reprinted in appendixes IV and V respectively. FCC,  FEMA, and NOAA provided technical comments, which we incorporated  as appropriate.

In its written comments, FCC stated that it agreed with us on the  importance of gathering and assessing specific performance information  about the effectiveness of WEA capabilities. Separately, FCC officials  noted that FCC was taking steps to gather this data, which will help  inform the development of metrics, as we recommended. In its written  comments, DHS concurred with our two recommendations to FEMA and  provided information about activities that FEMA would undertake to  implement them.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, Chairman of FCC, Secretaries of Homeland Security,  Commerce, and the Interior, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or Vonaha@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the trends in how alerting authorities use and  test IPAWS and their experiences using IPAWS, and (2) actions that  FEMA and FCC have taken to modernize IPAWS and increase its  adoption, and the challenges they face.

For background information on emergency alerting, we identified key  issues and federal roles and responsibilities by reviewing applicable laws  and regulations, our prior work, and reports prepared by FEMA, FCC, the  Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General,  the Congressional Research Service, and academics. We also identified  recent trends regarding natural disasters and the use of digital devices  and the internet that could affect the use and frequency of emergency  alerting. To identify natural disaster trends, we reviewed our prior work, a  2018 report prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and  information on wildfires prepared by the California Department of Forestry  and Fire Protection. We identified trends about the use of digital devices  and the internet by reviewing surveys conducted from 2017 to 2019 by  the Pew Research Center and The Nielsen Company, which regularly  conduct national surveys on those topics. We also reviewed proposed  federal legislation on emergency alerting.

To examine the use of IPAWS and selected alerting authorities’  experiences using IPAWS, we analyzed IPAWS access and usage  throughout the country from 2012 to 2019. We focused on identifying the  authorities that used IPAWS from 2017 to 2019 following the passage of  the IPAWS Modernization Act of 2015 (enacted in 2016). We analyzed  IPAWS testing by judgmentally selecting samples of authorities  conducting tests. In our calculations of the number of alerts issued by  state, territorial, tribal, and local authorities, we focused on alerts for  disasters and threats to public safety and excluded test alerts and alerts  for missing persons and child abductions. We reviewed FEMA’s  processes for ensuring the completeness and reliability of these alerting  data and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes  of examining trends in the use of emergency alerts. We also reviewed  reports by FCC and local authorities on EAS and WEA test results. To  obtain information on alerting authorities’ experiences using IPAWS, we  conducted seven case studies of emergency events. To select them, we  analyzed alerts that local authorities issued through IPAWS, FEMA’s list  of federally declared disasters from 2017 to 2019, NOAA’s list of billion  dollar disasters from 2017 to 2019, and our prior work on natural disaster  preparedness and recovery from 2017 to 2019; considered  recommendations from stakeholders; conducted internet searches; and  reviewed news reports. We selected these case studies to include various  areas of the country that experienced different types of disasters and  threats to public safety during this time. These included natural disasters  (wildfires and an earthquake), weather events (a hurricane and a flood),  manmade disasters (a chemical fire and a power shortage), and a law  enforcement event (a suspicious package). We then interviewed local  alerting authorities in those areas. As a test case study, we interviewed  District of Columbia emergency management officials. We conducted site  visits with state and local emergency management officials in Los  Angeles and Ventura, California; Bristol, Panama City, and Tallahassee,  Florida; and Washington, D.C.

To examine the actions that FEMA and FCC have taken to modernize  IPAWS and increase its adoption, and the challenges they face, we  reviewed FEMA documents such as IPAWS strategic plans and a  performance report; FCC regulations, notices, and comments on FCC  proposed rulemakings regarding EAS and WEA; and assessed the  information against statutory requirements contained in the IPAWS  Modernization Act and federal internal control standards. We focused on  four areas of the Act that were key in the implementation of the  program. These areas required FEMA, in consultation and coordination  with FCC, to: ensure that IPAWS is capable of distributing alerts on the basis of  geographic location, risks, and technologies; educate state, tribal, and local governments to understand how  IPAWS works, and how and when to use IPAWS; establish training opportunities for alerting authorities; and conduct nationwide tests of IPAWS alerts.

We compared FCC’s actions to leading practices based on the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as enhanced  by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA),  which create a  framework of goal setting and performance management for federal  agencies. While GPRA and GPRAMA apply to the department or agency  level, we have previously reported that their provisions can serve as  leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component  agencies, offices, programs, and projects. We also reviewed  recommendations in reports prepared by the FEMA National Advisory  Council IPAWS Subcommittee and FCC’s Communications Security,  Reliability, and Interoperability  Council, and disaster after-action reports  prepared by FEMA and state and local governments.

As an additional step in assessing the challenges that FEMA faces in  increasing IPAWS adoption, we analyzed FEMA’s pending IPAWS  applications as of September 2019 to determine which steps in the  application and approval process had been completed and how long the  applications were in process. We also interviewed four selected IPAWS  applicants to obtain their views on the application process. To obtain a  variety of perspectives, we selected applicants that were different types of  organizations (an airport, a university, a local government, and a federal  agency) in different areas of the country. In addition, for both objectives,  we interviewed officials from FEMA, FCC, NOAA, USGS, and 18 state,  local and territorial alerting authorities; representatives from 4 industry  associations, 2 advocacy groups, and 15 companies, including wireless  carriers, internet service providers, internet content providers, IPAWS  software providers, and mobile device manufacturers; and 7 academics.  To obtain a variety of perspectives, we selected industry associations and  companies that represented different telecommunications industry sectors  and have different roles in emergency alerting (broadcasting, cable,  wireless, internet service, and application developers) and academics  with different areas of expertise (public health, engineering, natural  hazards, disaster preparedness, rural emergency management, and  communication). We also interviewed staff from a county board that  oversees emergency management activities in that jurisdiction and  officials from a city that is planning to apply for IPAWS access. The  results of these interviews are not generalizable to all stakeholders, but  provide insight on the use of IPAWS and related emergency alerting  issues. Our interviewees are listed in table 2 below.

Appendix II: Types of Wireless Emergency Alerts

Appendix III: Case Studies Regarding the Use of IPAWS

Selected Alert Sent by the Florida  Division of Emergency Management for  Bay County during Hurricane Michael:  October 10, 2018: GOVERNOR  EVAC  ALERT 6 to 13 FT STORM  SURGE  EXPECTED  IN  BAY COUNTY Zones A,B,C  EVACUATE NOW  Selected alerts sent by Bay County  Emergency Services during Hurricane  Michael:  October 10, 2018: Dangerous w inds are  beginning to occur in Bay County Shelter in  place now   October 15, 2018: Bay County remains  under a boil w ater notice. Please boil or use  bottled w ater for consumption.  October 15, 2018: FOOD  AND OR WATER  ARE AVAILABLE NORTH  OF 15th AND CR  386 AT 1011 CR 386 SOUTH  Bay County officials said the county lost its  ability to issue alerts at this point.

Hurricane Michael, October 2018: Hurricane Michael was a category 5  storm  that NWS reported made a catastrophic landfall near Mexico  Beach and Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, producing devastating winds  and storm surge near the coast, and rain and wind inland (see fig. 6).  According to a State of Florida report, Hurricane Michael was the most  powerful storm to hit the Panhandle region and the third most intense  storm to make landfall in the mainland United States in recorded history.  During the storm, several counties could not send alerts because of  power outages and inoperable cellular towers.

Officials from an alerting authority we interviewed in Florida commended  the state’s ability to send IPAWS alerts on behalf of the county, which had  lost its communications capabilities during the storm. Authorities also said  IPAWS provides an ability to warn the public about approaching  hurricanes and share critical lifesaving information such as the location of  food, water, and shelter. However, authorities expressed frustration about  the inability to accurately geo-target WEA messages to evacuation zones  and about how the WEA text character limit forced them to issue multiple  WEA messages regarding the same alert. Some officials said they were  frustrated when certain local EAS alerts were not delivered by  broadcasters, which could prevent some people from receiving them.

Alert issued by the California Governor’s  Office of Emergency Services:  Dec. 6, 2017: Strong w inds over night creating  extreme fire danger. Stay alert. Listen to  authorities.  Alert issued by the Ventura County  Sheriff’s Office – Office of Emergency  Services:  Dec. 7, 2017: VENTURA  COUNTY-FAST  MOVING  BRUSH  FIRE  NORTH  OF OJAI.GO  TO READYVENTURACOUNTY.ORG  FOR  INFO  Selected alerts issued by the City of Los  Angeles:  Dec. 6, 2017: For information regarding the  Skirball Fire in Los Angeles please go to  Tw itter.com/LAFD  Nov. 9, 2018: MANDATORY  EVACUATION  in  West Hills: W of Valley Circle, N to Roscoe  Blvd, S to Vanowen.  Selected alert issued by Santa Barbara  County:  Dec. 16, 2017: EVAC ORDER:  SB City: east  of Hw y 154 to Mission Canyon Rd and north  of 192. Leave now .

Southern California Wildfires, December 2017 and November 2018:  The southern California area experienced large wildfires in recent years,  including the Thomas fire in December 2017 and the Woolsey fire in  November 2018 (see fig. 7). The California Department of Forestry and  Fire Protection reported in August 2019 that the Thomas fire, which  affected Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, was the second-largest  wildfire in the state’s history and destroyed more than 1,000 structures.  The Woolsey fire, which affected Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, had  a footprint over 150 square miles and resulted in the evacuation of about  a quarter-million people. According to Los Angeles County, the Woolsey  fire was the most destructive fire in the county’s history.

California officials we interviewed said IPAWS is an effective tool for  wildfire evacuations and that because most people have cell phones, they  do not have to subscribe to receive WEA messages. Officials also praised  the capability of IPAWS to allow a state alerting authority to send alerts to  at-risk counties ahead of potential wildfires. However, officials said it is a  challenge to know when and where other alerting authorities in the area  are sending alerts and that there may be little time. For example, an  official told us that the Thomas fire moved at 60 miles per hour. Officials  also said that even though WEA messages were targeted to an area  during the fires, they did not know whether people received them because  geo-targeting was not precise and because cell towers may have been  damaged.

Alerts issued by the New York City  Emergency Management Department on  Oct. 24, 2018:  Police Activity: Residents on W 58th St btw   Columbus & 8th Av shelter in place  immediately  The suspicious device on W 58 St & 8th Ave  w as safely removed by NYPD Bomb Squad.

Suspicious Package in New York City, October 24, 2018: On October  24, 2018, the New York City Emergency Management Department issued  a WEA shelter-in-place order regarding a suspicious package at the Time  Warner Center in Manhattan that was found to contain an improvised  explosive device (see fig. 8). According to officials, police removed the  device and determined it was no longer a threat. About an hour after the  initial alert was issued, the city issued another WEA canceling the shelter- in-place alert.

New York City officials said IPAWS is the city’s most effective alert and  warning tool, compared with its own alerting system to which about 9  percent of the population has subscribed. Regarding the suspicious  package, authorities were able to draw an alerting area covering a 3 to 4  block radius. The officials also said that WEA messages were  instrumental in helping to capture a suspect in a bombing incident in the  city’s Chelsea neighborhood in 2016. However, officials said the October  2018 alert was received as far as 4 miles from the targeted area, which  led them to speculate about the number of people who received the alert.  Officials also said they would like IPAWS to incorporate more languages for use in alerts and provide them with the ability to use photographs or  maps in future alerts.

Alerts issued by the Douglas County  Emergency Management Agency:  March 14, 2019: From Douglas County  Sheriffs Office. Record flooding on Elkhorn  River. Evacuate Now .  March 15, 2019: From Douglas County  Sheriff: Evacuate City of Valley NOW. Use Q  Street. Hw y 275 closed.   Alert Issued by Platte County Emergency  Management:  March 14, 2019: Travel is not advised in and  around Columbus and Platte County due to  extensive flooding.

Flood in Nebraska, March 2019: In March 2019, Nebraska experienced  one of the most devastating floods in recent history, according to the state  government (see fig. 9). We interviewed officials in Douglas County and  Platte County, areas that experienced torrential rain and flooding. One  county sent a geo-targeted WEA evacuation alert to people living near a  river while the other county sent a WEA advising the public to not travel  within the county.

A county official in Nebraska said that if the planned future enhancements  to WEA take place and are found to be successful, WEA will ultimately be  of greater value than other means of notification such as the county’s  previous subscription system, which had a low participation rate. The  official stressed the difficulty in explaining the threat, the source of the  alert, and a protective action within the 90 character WEA limit. The  official also noted that some local broadcasters were not equipped to  recognize an EAS law enforcement alert for further transmission. An  official in another county said that some people did not receive the WEA  messages.

Power shortage in Michigan, January 2019: On January 30, 2019,  Consumers Energy, a primary energy supplier in Michigan, experienced a  fire at a natural gas storage facility at a time when there was high energy  demand because of extreme cold temperatures (see fig. 10). According to  NWS, Michigan’s Lower Peninsula experienced the lowest temperatures  in decades—down to minus 20 degrees with wind chills of down to minus  40 degrees. As a result, the state’s Emergency Operations Center asked  the Michigan State Police, an IPAWS alerting authority, to issue WEA and  EAS alerts asking people to lower their thermostats to conserve natural  gas.

Michigan State Police officials said that IPAWS allowed the alerting  authority to send a WEA message to 68 counties, which was an effective  and quick way to reach many people. However, officials said they  attempted to send an EAS alert to all 68 counties in Michigan’s Lower  Peninsula but were limited to a total of 31 counties per alert, per FCC  regulations. They said that after the EAS alert was sent, the actual EAS  broadcast message was not displayed on television because the entire  list of the 31 county names, which must be read first according to FCC  regulations, took up the allowable 2-minute time span for an EAS  broadcast.

Alerts issued by the City of Houston on  Sept. 20, 2017:  Shelter in Place in northw est Spring Branch  due to hazardous fire. Check local media.  Shelter in place is CANCELLED  for Northw est  Spring Branch after hazardous fire.

Chemical Fire in Houston, Texas, September 20, 2017: The Houston  Fire Department requested that the Houston Office of Emergency  Management issue a WEA shelter-in-place order following a chemical fire  at a bearing supply company that resulted in the release of potentially  hazardous smoke (see fig. 11).

Houston officials said they believe that IPAWS allowed the alerting  authority to reach a broad area at risk using the WEA message. However,  officials said it is possible that a lack of training on behalf of the alerting  authority, among other things, limited their ability to issue the alert in a  timely fashion. They said it took the alerting authority 43 minutes and  multiple attempts to properly prepare and send the message using its  IPAWS-compatible software before the message was successfully sent to  the public.

Earthquake in Alaska,  November 30, 2018: A magnitude 7.0  earthquake struck north of Anchorage, Alaska, on November 30, 2018  (see fig. 12). We interviewed officials from three local governments that  were affected by the earthquake. Officials at one borough said they did  not issue an IPAWS alert because the earthquake had a short intensity  and they did not receive reports of fatalities or widespread damage.  However, the officials said that if the earthquake’s intensity had been  greater, they would have issued used IPAWS to alert people about  shelter locations. NWS used IPAWS to issue a tsunami warning but local  officials did not issue any alerts through IPAWS.

Officials in Alaska said that it is helpful that another government agency  can be a backup alerting authority and provide alerts through IPAWS on  behalf of the local government. However, an official said the inability to  precisely geo-target alerts about tsunami risks to coastal areas prevented  the official from sending out an alert due to concerns that people who  were not affected by the earthquake would receive the alert. Another  official said the cost of procuring alerting software that is compatible with  IPAWS may be a challenge for some local governments.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Sally Moino (Assistant  Director); Michael Sweet (Analyst in Charge); David Aja; Melissa Bodeau;  Mark Goldstein; Bob Homan; Kate Perl; Cheryl Peterson; Sam Portnow;  Malika Rice; and Andrew Stavisky made key contributions to this report.

Emergency alerts can provide lifesaving information. FEMA manages the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, allowing public safety agencies to send alerts to cell phones, radios, and TVs during natural disasters or other emergencies.

FEMA has begun to modernize alerting capabilities with help from the FCC. However, some state and local public safety agencies cannot access the system and others have low confidence in using it. Also, without goals and performance measures for improvements made to wireless emergency alerts, the FCC can’t ensure the system is working as intended.

We are making 3 recommendations to address these concerns.