50 States of 911

The United States are exactly that, a group of states united into a county. This leads to a varied landscape rather than a single, uniform national standard. This diversity is evident in the regulations for service providers, the organizational structures of 9-1-1 departments, and their funding mechanisms.

Each state independently establishes its own regulations and guidelines for communication service providers that interact with 9-1-1 systems. For example, in Georgia, the Georgia Emergency Communications Authority (GECA) maintains a database of registered telephone service suppliers and tracks the status of wireline and wireless 9-1-1 services. Service suppliers are required to register and submit updated forms to comply with state law, with penalties like fines and ineligibility for cost recovery funds for non-compliance. Similarly, California's 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch coordinates Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E9-1-1 services to ensure calls are routed and user location information is sent to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) as mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Hawaii's 9-1-1 Fund collects a monthly surcharge from most communication service connections, and all service providers and resellers are mandated to bill and collect this surcharge. These state-specific rules illustrate that there are not 50 identical regulations, but rather distinct sets of rules per state.

The organizational placement of 9-1-1 programs also varies significantly from state to state. For instance, the Arizona 9-1-1 Program is part of the Arizona Strategic Enterprise Technology (ASET) division within the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA-ASET). In contrast, Georgia's 9-1-1 Program operates under the Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency, and Florida's 911 Public Safety Telecommunicator Program is managed by the Emergency Medical Services Section of the Florida Department of Health. Other states, like Pennsylvania, place their 9-1-1 Program within the PA Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), while New Mexico houses its NM-911 Bureau within the Department of Finance and Administration. This highlights that 9-1-1 services can be integrated into broader state administrative, health, or emergency management departments, or exist as independent boards attached for administrative purposes, as is the case for the Hawaii 9-1-1 Board which is attached to the Department of Accounting and General Services.

Funding and spending mechanisms for 9-1-1 services are also diverse across the U.S. states. Arizona, for example, manages a statewide 9-1-1 excise tax and distributes these funds to 81 Emergency Communication Centers. Hawaii's 9-1-1 Board administers a special 9-1-1 Fund, primarily supported by a monthly surcharge, to ensure adequate funding for PSAPs, sustain 9-1-1 service, and develop future technologies. California has focused on modernizing its 9-1-1 funding formula through legislation (SB 96 / AB 96) to secure necessary revenue for Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) implementation. Similarly, Washington State's 9-1-1 unit receives funding from a voter-approved state 9-1-1 excise tax and offers grants, while Wisconsin's Office of Emergency Communications announces annual PSAP and GIS Grant Programs to support NG9-1-1 implementation and data activities. Ohio's Governor's Fiscal Year 2024-2025 operating budget specifically funded infrastructure costs for NG9-1-1, with implementation starting in pilot counties. These examples demonstrate that funding can come from direct taxes, surcharges, state legislative appropriations, and targeted grant programs.

The 50 states are linked below. Click here to explore these links in an AI notebook.