A Review of the Funding and Expenditures of Emergency Communications Districts of Selected Mississippi Counties
Executive Summary
Introduction
In response to a legislative inquiry, the PEER Committee reviewed the funding and expenditures of emergency communications districts of selected counties in Mississippi.
PEER selected nine counties as case studies for a review of emergency communications district expenditures from Fiscal Year 2011 through Fiscal Year 2013: DeSoto, Franklin, Jackson, Jasper, Kemper, Madison, Newton, Panola, and Warren.1 PEER chose counties based on two selection criteria:
Background
What is the purpose of the 911 system in Mississippi?
The Legislature facilitated implementation of the 911 system in Mississippi per MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-301 (1972) with the purposes that 911 services are intended to help save lives and property, bring about quicker apprehension of criminals, and ultimately, reduce costs.
What are the types of 911 systems?
There are two primary types of 911 systems: Basic 911 and Enhanced 911. These systems are distinguished by both the technology infrastructure in place and the level of information obtained by the public safety answering point (PSAP) when a 911 call is received. In a Basic 911 system, the caller dials 911 and the dispatcher receives no information until callers give their identity, the number from which they are calling, and the location where emergency services are needed. In an Enhanced 911 (E911) system, the E911 call-taker receives the callback number, location information, and who are the appropriate emergency responders for that location through the supporting technology.
What are the federal and state requirements for implementation of E911?
Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Mississippi Legislature has placed any timeline requirements on public safety answering points (or emergency communications districts) to upgrade to Phase 1 or Phase 2 E911 capability.2
What is the status of 911 systems in the state, by emergency communications district?
Currently sixty-three counties (77%) in Mississippi are Phase 2 capable. Thirteen counties (16%) are Phase 1 capable and six counties (7%) are Phase 0 capable. While the ideal goal would be that all eighty-two counties are Phase 2 capable, neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Legislature has placed any time requirements for upgrading to this capability.
The 911 Delivery System in Mississippi and Current Funding
Who are the participants in the state’s 911 delivery system and what are their roles?
Key participants in the state’s 911 system are the Federal Communications Commission, the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Board, the Board of Emergency Telecommunications Standards and Training, the counties, the emergency communications districts, the public safety answering points, the service suppliers, and the consumers (see Exhibit 1, page 12, of the report).
While the Legislature established a funding mechanism for the implementation of 911 services through MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-301 (1972), it did not specify any standards or recommendations for implementation at the county level, aside from minimum training standards for 911 dispatchers. Each county’s board of supervisors has the authority to create an emergency communications district (ECD). Furthermore, this emergency communications district has the discretion to structure the emergency dispatching operations as it deems necessary, including the determination of the number of PSAPs to establish and operate within the district. Thus local 911 service is delivered through a variety of mechanisms.
What are the primary sources of funding for the 911 system?
Emergency communications districts receive funding through service charges collected on commercial mobile radio services, prepaid wireless telecommunication services, Voice over Internet Protocol subscriber accounts, and residential and commercial telephone subscriber lines to implement the 911 system. Counties and municipalities may also contribute direct or indirect support for the financial operations of the emergency communications districts and PSAPs, including paying salaries and benefits for dispatchers to answer 911 calls and dispatch the necessary emergency response.
How are the assessed 911 service charges distributed based on the type of telecommunication service?
Once the 911 service charges are assessed, they are distributed to the counties or the emergency communications districts based on specific requirements in Mississippi law and on the type of telecommunication service. Ultimately, the county board of supervisors and/or the emergency communications districts have discretion on how 911 funding is spent in regard to local operations.
Case Studies of Emergency Communications Districts’ Expenditures
What are acceptable expenditures for emergency communications funds?
Expenditure of emergency communications funds must relate to emergency communications and must comply with the purposes stated in MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-301 (1972). However, PEER believes that the statute does not provide sufficient direction to the counties and emergency communications districts for determining whether expenditures are acceptable. The Attorney General has issued several opinions to clarify requirements of the statute.
How are the emergency communications districts in the selected counties spending their funds?
From fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the selected counties’ emergency communications districts spent an average of 96% of total expenditures on the following four categories: Salaries and Benefits; Capital Expenditures; Rent and Utilities; and Repairs, Maintenance and Materials.
What accountability systems are in place for emergency communications expenditures?
State law does not define how counties should account for emergency communications revenues or detail how each county should organize the daily operations of its emergency communications district. Each county PEER selected for review had developed its own framework to provide accountability for its emergency communications expenditures.
Did the selected emergency communications districts’ expenditures comply with the purposes outlined in state law?
In its review of seven1 of the selected counties’ reported financial detail, PEER noted that, in PEER’s opinion, most counties’ financial detail reflected reasonable use of emergency communications funds when compared to the purposes outlined in MISS. CODE ANN. § 19-5-301 (1972). However, PEER did find some expenditures made by the Madison County Emergency Communications District in FY 2011 ($54,594) and FY 2012 ($43,924) that, in PEER’s opinion, did not conform to the purposes outlined in law.
What factors could contribute to potentially noncompliant expenditures of emergency communications funds?
While several sections of the MISSISSIPPI CODE set out the legislative purpose for E911 and 911 services, no provisions set out clear guidelines for ECDs to follow when determining the ends to which they may direct their 911 funds. Further, no provision specifically requires the periodic auditing of emergency communications districts, thereby making it unlikely that any actions would be taken against districts for misspent funds.
Is the current level of emergency communications funding adequate to provide for the selected counties’ emergency communications operations?
In all of the counties selected for review, PEER noted operational deficits when the total cost of emergency communications is considered. Total cost factors in both the revenues and expenditures from an emergency communications district’s operation and additional county and municipal support for emergency communications. In all cases for the reviewed counties, additional costs of the emergency communications district were passed on to the counties and municipalities, which are prohibited from levying taxes or other fees to raise funds specifically for the costs incurred to provide emergency communications services.
Are there potential future costs that could be incurred by the emergency communications districts?
With the advancements in technology, many communication devices can now transmit new forms of data to 911 call centers that could potentially introduce fundamental changes to the way the current 911 system could be operated and funded. This enhanced technology capability is referred to as Next Generation 911 (NG911). Regarding the potential future costs of NG911, the Blue Ribbon Panel on 911 Funding3 determined that while there are many different mechanisms currently in place to fund 911, there does not currently exist any accurate and sufficiently detailed estimate of the funds needed to transition to NG911 or to operate a NG911 system.
Options for Improving the Efficiency of Emergency Communications Districts
What models do surrounding states utilize to operate emergency communications districts efficiently?
PEER reviewed the emergency communications district state laws and structures for both Alabama and Tennessee. Each state structure operated through a more standardized and rigorous approach than the current system in Mississippi. In Alabama, general expenditure guidelines are established by the state regarding 911 service delivery operations. In Tennessee, a statewide 911 system with formal policies and procedures oversees emergency communications district operations and expenditures.
What are some of the best practice standards for structuring emergency communications districts in order to improve efficiency?
Best practices provide options for improving efficiency, where applicable and feasible, by consolidating the 911 telecommunicator and dispatching operations of each county into one centralized PSAP; by consolidating emergency communications districts; and, by controlling staffing levels by following the National Emergency Number Association’s staffing guidelines for a PSAP, based on the population the emergency communications district serves.
Next Steps and Potential Funding Options
What legislative action could be taken to improve Mississippi emergency communications districts’ efficiency and minimize potentially noncompliant expenditures?
The Legislature could enact legislation that would provide specific guidance in regard to how emergency communications districts may expend funding, similar to the structure of the Alabama 911 system. Furthermore, the Legislature could enact legislation that requires the periodic audit of 911 funds and expands the authority of the CMRS Board to establish a centralized entity to oversee aspects of the implementation of the 911 service delivery system in Mississippi.
What options could be implemented to generate additional funding for emergency communications districts?
While PEER acknowledges that the need for additional funding for emergency communications districts may exist, this additional funding should be contingent on having an accountability system in place to ensure that ECDs are expending existing 911 funds efficiently. Additional funding for emergency communications districts could be raised from several sources, including increasing emergency service charges, redirecting the thirty percent reserve in the CMRS Fund for provider reimbursement, or allowing counties and local governments to charge fees or assessments to help defray the cost of providing emergency communications services.
Recommendations
1 Due to time constraints of the project, PEER was unable to incorporate the statements received from Warren County and Franklin County into the financial analysis.
2 Phase capability refers to a public safety answering point’s ability to capture data at the time a call is received. A Phase 0 PSAP can receive voice calls only, with no data associated with the call. A Phase 1 PSAP can see data associated with a voice call, such as the caller’s phone number. A Phase 2 PSAP can receive both the data associated with a voice call and the coordinates of the 911 caller’s actual location.
3 The Blue Ribbon Panel on 911 Funding provides specific expertise in economics and applies that expertise to develop models for funding and oversight of 911 systems that could be applied at local, and/or state levels of government. The panel includes academic economists, representatives of private equity companies, and people with experience with funding large infrastructure projects.