Survey of Costs to Complete Phase II
Purpose of Survey
The task to undertake a survey of costs to complete Phase II was a work item added to the Wireless Implementation Project in order to respond to a request of the Government Accountability Office for that survey. The November 2003 GAO report called for an estimate of the equipment needs of PSAPs and county 9-1-1 systems in order to complete wireless Phase II at the national level. The evaluation was to involve contacting state 9-1-1 administrators, state 9-1-1 coordinators, and county 9-1-1 coordinators to assemble information regarding PSAP equipment needs for wireless Phase II.
Methodology
Survey Sample
The survey of counties without Phase II wireless started with a sample size of 1,819 counties when initiated in October 2005 (Table 1). That list was extracted from the Wireless Deployment Profile.
| State | Complete | State Funded | State Info. | No Phase II | Funded | Not Funded | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 32+ | 7 | 25+7 | ||||
| Alaska | X | 24 | |||||
| Arizona | X | 13 | |||||
| Arkansas | X | 32 | |||||
| California | X | 42 | |||||
| Colorado | 42 | 15 | 27 | ||||
| Connecticut | X | 0 | |||||
| Delaware | X | 3 | |||||
| District of Columbia | X | 0 | |||||
| Florida | X | 19 | |||||
| Georgia | 143+ | 44 | 99+4 | ||||
| Hawaii | X | 3 | |||||
| Idaho | 38+ | 5 | 33+3 | ||||
| Illinois | 61+ | 35 | 26+9 | ||||
| Indiana | X | 10 | |||||
| Iowa | X | 37 | |||||
| Kansas | 88 | 50 | 38 | ||||
| Kentucky | X | 41 | |||||
| Louisiana | 55 | 25 | 30 | ||||
| Maine | X | 0 | |||||
| Maryland | X | 0 | |||||
| Massachusetts | X | 0 | |||||
| Michigan | 11 | 11 | |||||
| Minnesota | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Mississippi | 79 | 22 | 57 | ||||
| Missouri | 79+ | 8 | 71+3 | ||||
| Montana | X | 55 | |||||
| Nebraska | X | 93 | |||||
| Nevada | 15+ | 3 | 12+4 | ||||
| New Hampshire | X | 0 | |||||
| New Jersey | X | 10 | |||||
| New Mexico | X | 33 | |||||
| New York | 26 | 20 | 6 | ||||
| North Carolina | 30 | 22 | 8 | ||||
| North Dakota | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Ohio | 83 | 37 | 46 | ||||
| Oklahoma | 77+ | 24 | 53+17 | ||||
| Oregon | X | 24 | |||||
| Pennsylvania | 56 | 21 | 35 | ||||
| Rhode Island | X | 0 | |||||
| South Carolina | 23 | 14 | 9 | ||||
| South Dakota | 62 | 28 | 34 | ||||
| Tennessee | X | 0 | |||||
| Texas | 209+ | 206 | 3 | ||||
| Utah | 28 | 10 | 18 | ||||
| Vermont | X | 0 | |||||
| Virginia | X | 27 | |||||
| Washington | X | 4 | |||||
| West Virginia | X | 29 | |||||
| Wisconsin | 61 | 40 | 21 | ||||
| Wyoming | 20 | 8 | 12 | ||||
| Total | 1819 | 656 | 664+47 | ||||
Survey Design
Early in the Wireless Implementation Project, NENA developed a comprehensive checklist for counties and/or PSAPs to use to assist in the implementation of Phase I and Phase II wireless. In part, the checklists specified what needed to be in place with respect to network, CPE, and mapping systems enhancements. Together, these three components account for most, if not all, quantifiable non-labor costs to implement wireless Phase II.
The survey questions, then, were developed to estimate costs for network, CPE, and mapping. Of added interest were any recurring costs for network and CPE, as differentiated from the one-time fixed cost to implement Phase II.
States with Wireless Phase II
States that have completed Wireless Phase II statewide include the following:
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Other states have indicated that Wireless Phase II will be completed at some point in the future with state funds that are already available. These include:
California
Florida
Indiana
Iowa
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
There are, therefore, 21 states plus the District of Columbia for which additional funds beyond those already committed are not needed.
Calls to State 9-1-1 and/or Wireless Coordinators.
The work scope called for contacts, by phone, to state 9-1-1 and/or wireless coordinators and to county 9-1-1 coordinators for information regarding estimates to complete Phase II. We initially called state coordinators to see if there was statewide information available. Six states provided cost information for statewide Phase II implementation. These states – Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Montana, Nebraska, and New Jersey – combined for 244 counties. Twelve other states indicated that they had state funds set aside for the completion of Phase II in their state, and that completion would be in the near term. These 12 states contain 255 counties without Phase II, so the number of required county coordinator surveys was reduced to 1,320.
Current Number of Counties without Wireless Phase II
As time progressed, and as the project team obtained additional information from the survey concerning counties that have already implemented Phase II, the number of counties without wireless Phase II declined from 1,819 to 1,624, which represents the current number of counties as of May 2006 that have yet to implement wireless Phase II (see Table 2). This number is consistent with the Wireless Deployment Profile maintained by NENA as part of the USDOT Wireless Implementation Project.
| STATE | <50K | 50-100K | >100K | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 25 | 1 | 2 | 28 |
| Alaska | 20 | 3 | 0 | 23 |
| Arizona | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13 |
| Arkansas | 29 | 1 | 0 | 30 |
| California | 15 | 7 | 12 | 34 |
| Colorado | 39 | 0 | 3 | 42 |
| Florida | 13 | 3 | 2 | 18 |
| Georgia | 110 | 12 | 11 | 133 |
| Hawaii | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Idaho | 33 | 2 | 1 | 36 |
| Illinois | 39 | 4 | 5 | 48 |
| Indiana | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Iowa | 19 | 1 | 1 | 21 |
| Kansas | 68 | 2 | 0 | 70 |
| Kentucky | 18 | 1 | 0 | 19 |
| Louisiana | 37 | 7 | 3 | 47 |
| Minnesota | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Mississippi | 64 | 6 | 3 | 73 |
| Missouri | 69 | 5 | 3 | 77 |
| Montana | 49 | 3 | 1 | 53 |
| Nebraska | 89 | 1 | 1 | 91 |
| Nevada | 13 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| New Jersey | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| New Mexico | 21 | 6 | 1 | 28 |
| New York | 6 | 9 | 6 | 21 |
| North Carolina | 17 | 9 | 1 | 27 |
| North Dakota | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ohio | 36 | 19 | 26 | 81 |
| Oklahoma | 65 | 8 | 4 | 77 |
| Oregon | 19 | 2 | 0 | 21 |
| Pennsylvania | 23 | 10 | 19 | 52 |
| South Carolina | 10 | 4 | 5 | 19 |
| South Dakota | 54 | 0 | 0 | 54 |
| Texas | 182 | 13 | 12 | 207 |
| Utah | 21 | 0 | 5 | 26 |
| Virginia | 22 | 0 | 1 | 23 |
| West Virginia | 28 | 2 | 0 | 30 |
| Wisconsin | 39 | 11 | 5 | 55 |
| Wyoming | 18 | 2 | 0 | 20 |
| TOTALS | 1320 | 158 | 146 | 1624 |
Methodology for Cost Estimates
For purposes of this analysis, NENA delineated three types of counties to help in the estimate of costs for wireless Phase II. Previous work by NENA and others has shown that, in general, small rural counties can be characterized as having only one or two PSAPs, with countywide addressing and a limited amount of CPE. Larger counties typically have more PSAPs, more positions per PSAP, and more CPE. Finally, larger cities will usually have still more PSAPs, positions, and CPE.
Using that information, NENA devised three types of counties based on population size - small, medium and large. Population size was selected because it is a data element readily available for all counties, and it correlates well with the size and complexity of emergency telecommunications systems.
Type 1 counties are small rural counties (less than 50,000 population) with network, CPE, and mapping requirements. Type 2 are larger counties with between 50,000 and 100,000 population and slightly higher mapping requirements. Type 3 are counties with greater than 100,000 population. On average these counties have higher costs for network, CPE and mapping.
Findings/Results
The surveys were compiled for each of the three types of counties. 157 completed surveys were available for Type 1 counties, 28 for Type 2 and 23 for Type 3. Total costs for wireless Phase II were determined by adding together the cost estimates for network, CPE and mapping for each county where the information was available from the surveys.
Table 3 shows the average cost for network, CPE and mapping for all counties in each type. These costs are based on the actual costs reported by counties in the survey. Due to the relatively small sample size of responses to each question, the results are presented in summary form only – for network, CPE and mapping – by type based on population size.
| Population | Total Average Cost | |
|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | <50,000 | 183K |
| Type 2 | 50,000 – 100,000 | 278K |
| Type 3 | >100,000 | 565K |
Six states provided estimates of costs for statewide implementation of wireless Phase II. These are as follows:
Arizona - $23,000,000 (cost recovery state)
Arkansas - $2,000,000
Kentucky - $8,000,000
Montana - $10,000,000
Nebraska - $3,600,000
New Jersey - $28,000,000
| Number of Counties | Cost Per County | Total Cost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | 980 | 183K | $179,340,000 |
| Type 2 | 128 | 278K | 35,584,000 |
| Type 3 | 120 | 565K | 67,800,000 |
| Total | 1,228 | $282,724,000 |
Adding the cost information from the survey results to the estimates from the six states, less Arizona since it is a cost recovery state, the combined total is $334,324,000.
Discussion
These are, at best, estimates of costs for completion of Phase II wireless. They are, however, very plausible in light of known costs to implement Phase II wireless combined with the estimate of costs from the surveys and from state 9-1-1 and wireless coordinators in the six states from which that information was obtained.
One additional consideration that became obvious from the survey of state administrators and county 9-1-1 coordinators is that timing of implementation is very much tied to the availability of funding. Many counties that were contacted explained that the sources of funding for Phase II were known and identified (surcharges were most often mentioned as the funding source) and it was a matter of moving forward with implementation. Some of the projected costs, then, may not represent an unfunded need for equipment, but rather are future costs that are both known and for which a funding source has been identified.
Other considerations include the fact that some states such as Ohio have been late in the passage of legislation to reimburse for equipment costs and other costs related to wireless Phase II. Ohio, for example, is rapidly deploying wireless Phase II following passage of its state legislation in late 2005. Every month counties are receiving approval of their wireless Phase II programs (including funding for equipment) from the state 9-1-1 office, and deployment is proceeding at a relatively rapid, albeit late, pace.
With wireless Phase II deployment now in excess of 50% of counties and PSAPs, but over 75% of population served, the remaining deployment efforts must be focused on rural areas. There, the same constraints that have historically adversely impacted the ability of rural areas to implement Enhanced 9-1-1 will come into play once again. Policy and funding must be directed towards those rural areas, in conjunction with the state 9-1-1 offices where they exist. Where no state 9-1-1 coordination exists, efforts must also focus on formation of state 9-1-1 offices. Without such coordination, wireless 9-1-1 in rural areas will continue to lag behind urban areas.
Previous | Next