NENA, NASNA Urge End to State 911 Fee Diversion
Top 911 associations are seeking to raise awareness about state 911 fee diversion, in which some states use 911 fees on consumer bills to pay for things not directly related. The FCC estimated diversion led to $223.4 million of 911 fee revenue going to other purposes in 2014. In Part I of this report, we found that the three states said to do the most diversion seemed unlikely to quit the practice soon (see 1605270020). In interviews last week, emergency response leaders said achieving 100 percent usage of 911 fees for 911 service is critical to maintaining emergency response service quality, adequately staffing 911 centers, and funding upgrades to Next-Generation 911 so people can send multimedia to emergency responders.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“This is a perennially thorny problem and it’s important,” said Evelyn Bailey, executive director of the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA). “It’s important that it be out in the open, and that it be discussed, and that all of the people involved become united” in trying to end money diversion, she said. There's more awareness of the problem, Bailey said, but “many states are facing difficult budget circumstances, and in an environment like that, state governors and legislatures look at all available sources of funding … to fill budget gaps or to fund new initiatives.”
State policymakers must become “aware of what needs to be done to keep the system current in terms of technology and better serving the public,” National Emergency Number Association (NENA) CEO Brian Fontes said. The 911 system “may be a victim of its own success,” he said. “We just expect it to be there, and most people who dial 911 have no idea in the world how it’s funded or in what shape the technology is at the 911 center, or to what degree the 911 professional who answered the call was trained.”
The number of states diverting fees fluctuates, said Bailey. In 2014, eight states diverted $223.4 million, or 8.8 percent of all 911 funds, said the FCC's most-recent report to Congress about 911 fee collection (see 1601080057). California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia said they used the diverted money for programs related to public safety or emergency response, while Illinois, New York and Rhode Island diverted funds to general funds or other non-911 uses.
Bailey and Fontes make no exception for those states that defend the practice by saying the 911 money still goes to public safety. Such “911 funds that are collected for 911 should go to 911, period,” said Bailey. “That’s what the law says in most cases in those states. That’s what people expect.” Fontes agreed. If they’re using fees for badges or uniforms, “let’s just be upfront about it” and say the fees are used for something other than 911, he said. “They’re 911 fees. They’re not just public safety fees.”
The problem could be worse than the FCC states, the 911 officials said. More states than reported might divert funds, and the amounts might be larger, Fontes said. “It’s self-reporting. There’s no audit. There’s no validation of whether this reporting is in fact correct. It’s taking something on its face value and it may or may not be accurate.” The FCC doesn't verify whether states received all the 911 fees they should have collected from carriers, said Bailey. “Not all states have the authority or capability to monitor or audit provider remittances to make sure they have collected or remitted everything they should,” she said. “There are state 911 programs that don’t have the authority to require providers to let them know that they’re doing business in the state. They don’t have the authority to identify who is remitting and who isn’t remitting. They don’t have the authority to do anything about it if they see that there are gaps or if the reported number of subscribers doesn’t match up with other external information or the amount that’s being remitted.”
Some states have protected 911 funds through legislation, while others placed the revenue in trust fund accounts, Bailey said. “Legislatures have the power to do what they want to do, regardless of such protective measures and statute.” Another answer might be to get the federal government involved, but Bailey said it could be tricky to prohibit diversion on a national basis: “911 fees have always been a state issue or local issue, or both in some states, and I don’t see that changing.” But Fontes said the federal government could encourage states not to divert fees by wording the prohibition as a condition for federal funding in infrastructure and other programs.
If all states stopped diverting the money, it would be only the first step to funding the upgrade of NG-911 systems, said the officials. Additional funding may be needed to upgrade to NG-911 while maintaining the existing system until the new one is built and tested, said Fontes. The 911 fees would be able to cover operating expenses and employee training, but additional capital would be helpful for the NG-911 upgrade, he said. “It will shorten the time period where communities would have to run both the [NG-911] system and the legacy system.” The funding could come from the state, the federal government or a combination, he said.
Many states have seen a general decline in 911 funding over the past 15 years as more people cut their landlines, Bailey said. Also, 911 fees for VoIP or cellphone replacements sometimes differ from those for landlines, depending on the state, she said. Fontes noted a further complication, in that some states have no fees on prepaid wireless plans, or if they do, the fee is different from what's charged for postpaid, said Fontes.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel flagged state 911 fee diversion as a problem at an APCO Summit last month. At the event, an aide to House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said no legislation is planned to enforce how states use funds (see 1605160052).