FCC required that (1) by April 1998, or within 6 months of a  request from a PSAP, wireless carriers be prepared to provide the PSAP  with the wireless phone number of the caller and the location of the cell  site receiving the 911 call (Phase I information); and (2) by October 2001, or  within 6 months of receiving a request from a PSAP, wireless carriers be  prepared to provide the PSAP with the geographic coordinates of the  caller’s location with greater precision, generally within 50 to 300 meters  (Phase II information). Significant Progress Has Been Made toward Nationwide Wireless E911 Implementation but Full Deployment is Years Away

Significant progress has been made in implementing wireless E911 services  since our last report on this topic in November 2003. At that time, using  data from NENA, we reported that nearly 65 percent of PSAPs nationwide  had implemented Phase I wireless E911 services and 18 percent of PSAPs  had implemented Phase II wireless E911 with at least one wireless carrier. As of January 2006, NENA reports that nearly 80 percent of  PSAPs nationwide had implemented Phase I wireless E911 services and 57  percent had implemented Phase II with at least one wireless carrier. Thirteen state contacts provided a range of 1  to 5 years for Phase II to be implemented, with three state contacts  responding that it would take more than 5 years. We found, based on our survey results and NENA  data, that 48 states and the District of Columbia collect surcharges to cover  the costs of implementing wireless E911 (see fig. The other two  states do not impose surcharges on wireless subscribers, but still have a  wireless E911 funding mechanism in place. Specifically, the state E911  contact for Missouri told us that the state uses funds from the local general  revenue, local 911 taxes, and wireline funds for E911 implementation; and  the Vermont state E911 contact said the state uses funds from the state’s  Universal Service Fund, which supports various telecommunications  programs. Responses to our survey indicated that  the per-subscriber surcharges varied from state to state and ranged from  $0.20 to $3.00 per month. States Employ Different Methods for Managing and Disbursing Funds

States and local governments have the authority to determine how they will  manage and disburse their E911 funds. Most States Have Written Criteria on the Allowable Use of E911 Funds

As part of our survey, we asked the state E911 contacts if their states had  established written criteria on the allowable uses of funds collected for the  purposes of wireless E911 implementation. According to our survey results, audits were the most common  approach used to oversee the use of E911 funds. A Few States Reported Using Wireless E911 Funds for Unrelated Purposes

Based on the responses of the 44 state E911 contacts who completed our  survey, four states that collected funds for the purposes of wireless E911  implementation made those funds available or used them for purposes  unrelated to E911 during 2005. For the six states and the District of  Columbia that did not respond to our survey, we do not know whether they  used any of their E911 funds for unrelated purposes. Four other states were  unsure if their wireless E911 funds have been used for unrelated purposes  because the funds are collected and maintained at the local level. For the four states that reported E911 funds were made available or used  for purposes not related to E911 during 2005, the state contacts reported  that the E911 funds were transferred to their state’s general fund. For  example, the E911 contact for North Carolina reported that E911 funds  were transferred to the general fund to help balance the state budget. According to the E911 contact for Virginia, funds were transferred to both  the general fund and to the state police, which responds to emergency calls  in some areas of the state. In response, FCC provided technical comments that we incorporated  where appropriate. As such, we are reporting on (1) the progress made  in implementing wireless E911 services throughout the country, (2) the  states and localities that have established taxes, fees, or charges for  wireless E911 implementation, and (3) the states or localities that have  used funds collected for the purposes of wireless E911 for unrelated  purposes. Of the  population of 51 state E911 contacts who were asked to participate in our  survey, we received 44 completed questionnaires for an overall response  rate of 86 percent. Other than this, we did not independently verify the survey results.
Why GAO Did This Study

"Enhanced 911" (E911) service refers to the capability of public safety answering points to automatically receive an emergency caller's location information. An industry association estimates that nearly 82 million 911 calls are placed each year by callers using mobile phones. Wireless E911 technology provides emergency responders with the location and callback number of a person calling 911 from a mobile phone. The ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 called for GAO to study state and local use of funds collected for the purpose of wireless E911 implementation. We are reporting on (1) the progress made in implementing wireless E911 services throughout the country, (2) the states and localities that have established taxes, fees, or charges for wireless E911 implementation, and (3) the states or localities that have used funds collected for the purposes of wireless E911 for unrelated purposes. To address these issues, we surveyed state-level E911 contacts on the collection and use of E911 funds. Of the 51 state E911 contacts (including the District of Columbia) who were asked to participate in our survey, we received 44 responses. We provided the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a draft of this report and FCC provided technical comments that we incorporated.

What GAO Found

Significant progress has been made towards implementing wireless E911 throughout the country since our November 2003 report. Deployment of wireless E911 usually proceeds through two phases: Phase I provides general location information by identifying the cell tower or cell site that is receiving the wireless call. Phase II provides more precise caller-location information, within 50 to 300 meters in most cases. We reported in November 2003, that nearly 65 percent of the more than 6,000 public safety answering points nationwide were capable of receiving Phase I information with wireless 911 calls and 18 percent had implemented Phase II wireless E911 with at least one wireless carrier. Currently, according to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), nearly 80 percent of public safety answering points are capable of receiving Phase I location information and 57 percent have implemented Phase II for at least one wireless carrier. However, based on our survey results, full implementation is still several years away in many states. In response to our survey, three state E911 contacts reported that it will take more than 5 years to have wireless E911 completely implemented in their states, and five others said that the technology might never be fully implemented in their states. Based on our survey results and NENA data, we found that nearly all states--48 states and the District of Columbia--require the wireless carriers to collect surcharges from their subscribers to cover the costs associated with implementing wireless E911. Responses to our survey showed the per-subscriber surcharges ranged from $0.20 to $3.00 per month. The two states that do not impose surcharges fund E911 through general revenue or the state's Universal Service Fund, which was established to support various telecommunications programs. States have the discretion to determine how they will manage and distribute the funds and we found the management of the funds and methods of disbursement varied. According to our survey results, many of the states that responded have written criteria on the allowable uses of E911 funds. Allowable uses of the E911 funds include purchasing equipment upgrades and software packages. Four state E911 contacts responded to our survey that their states did not use all of the funds collected for E911 on E911 implementation purposes during 2005. Six states, and the District of Columbia, did not respond to our survey so we do not know whether those states used E911 funds or made them available for other purposes. Four other states reported that they were unsure if all E911 funds were used solely for E911 purposes because the funds are collected and managed at the local level. The four states that reported that E911 funds were made available or used for purposes not related to E911 indicated that the E911 funds were transferred to their state's general fund. For example, one state told us that E911 funds were transferred to the general fund to help balance the state budget. Another state reported that some E911 funds were transferred to the state police since they answer emergency calls in some areas of the state.