Public Safety & Mission Software
Next Generation 911 Readiness
GIS data quality and software integration for IP-based 911 systems.
What this covers
Next Generation 911 replaces legacy call routing with IP-based networks that route calls using GIS data. The transition places new demands on the accuracy of address and boundary data and on the systems that consume location information. HQT supports the software and data side of that transition.
Typical activities
- GIS data assessment against NG911 data standards, including road centerlines, address points, and boundaries
- Data cleanup workflows and validation tooling
- Integration of location data with CAD and mapping applications
- Text, image, and video handling considerations for call-handling and records systems
- Coordination with state 911 authorities and regional emergency communications centers
What you receive
A data readiness assessment, cleaned and validated GIS layers, integration work products, and a maintenance process to keep data current.
Why it matters
In NG911, a bad address point can misroute a call. GIS quality becomes a life-safety matter, and the software that consumes it must handle location data correctly.
Signals that this work belongs on your near-term plan
- Your state 911 program returns GIS submissions with error reports, and the same error classes reappear cycle after cycle.
- MSAG and ALI discrepancy reports are worked by hand, and the backlog does not shrink between reports.
- The addressing authority, the assessor, the utility, and the CAD map disagree about the same address, and staff know from memory which one to believe.
- Emergency service boundaries were digitized years ago and have never been edge-matched against the adjoining jurisdiction.
- New subdivisions, annexations, and road name changes reach the dispatch map long after they are recorded in land records.
- An ESInet or call-handling cutover has a date, and GIS preparation is a part-time duty assigned to one person.
- Text-to-911 is live, but message locations cannot be reliably plotted or attached to an incident in CAD.
One of these is a task. Several together usually mean the data, not the network, sets the pace of your transition.
How a fragile fix shows itself
Cleanup that does not hold has recognizable traits, and they are worth looking for in your own data before a cutover date is set. Corrections made in the export rather than in the system of record bring the same defects back on the next publication. Records that fail validation are sometimes dropped instead of corrected, which makes an error report look clean while leaving a location unfindable by the routing and location validation functions. Local overrides in the CAD map hide defects in the authoritative layers instead of exposing them, so dispatchers quietly compensate for problems that are never reported upstream. Boundary work that stops at the agency line leaves gaps and overlaps where two jurisdictions each assumed the other had it. When the data model documentation and the validation scripts stay with a vendor, no one can rerun the checks after the engagement ends.
Where this work meets your existing vendors
NG911 readiness sits in the seams between parties that each do a defined job, and none of them owns reconciliation by default. A state or regional 911 authority and its core services provider typically validate what you provision and report what fails, but they do not correct your source records. The call-handling system presents the location delivered with the call. CAD plots and routes what it is given. Addressing authorities, land records, planning, and utilities create the records that become address points. The neighboring center owns the other side of every shared boundary.
Settle in writing who reconciles conflicts between those sources, who assigns addresses, who publishes to the state aggregator, and who approves a boundary change. That question is easier to answer before a cutover date exists than after.
What to require in a solicitation
- Deliverables in the NG911 GIS data model your state has adopted, including any state-specific fields, with a schema conformance report for each layer.
- Validation rules delivered as runnable tooling with documentation, and the right to keep using both, so staff can repeat every check after the engagement ends.
- Corrections written back to the system of record, with an account of which source system each correction went to.
- Error counts by layer and by error class, before and after, so improvement can be checked rather than asserted.
- Acceptance tied to a stated result at the state aggregator and to routing tests on sample locations, including boundary parcels, rural addresses, and multi-unit structures.
- Edge-match sign-off from each adjoining jurisdiction for every shared emergency service boundary.
- A stated approach to MSAG and ALI synchronization for as long as the legacy path stays in service.
Working with HQT on this
HQT scopes this kind of work as a fixed-price or time-and-materials engagement with a written statement of work, named staff, and a defined acceptance process. We are candid about what we can take on and prefer a well-run project to an oversized one. Contact us to discuss a requirement, a draft scope, or an upcoming solicitation.
Frequently asked questions
How do we know whether our GIS data is ready for NG911?
Readiness is measured against the NG911 GIS data model your state has adopted, not against how the data looks on a map. The practical tests are whether every addressable location has an address point that validates, whether centerline names and ranges agree with those points, and whether emergency service and answering point boundaries cover the jurisdiction without gaps or overlaps and match the adjoining ones. Many state programs validate submitted data and return error reports, which is the fastest way to get an objective baseline. Reading those reports by error class rather than by total count shows whether you have a handful of bad records or a modeling problem.
Is NG911 GIS data the state's responsibility or the local agency's?
Arrangements vary, but a common split is that a state or regional 911 authority procures the ESInet and core services and runs aggregation and validation, while local agencies remain the authoritative source for addresses, road centerlines, and boundaries within their jurisdiction. Under that split the state can tell you what failed validation but generally cannot correct it for you. Check your state 911 plan and any data submission or provisioning agreement for the exact division of duties.
Can we keep our current CAD and call handling vendors through an NG911 transition?
Often yes, provided each product supports the interfaces and location handling that the i3 architecture your state has deployed requires. Ask each vendor which version is required, what it takes to consume location delivered with the call rather than from a legacy lookup, and what the upgrade path involves. Integration work on the mapping and geocoding side of CAD is frequently still needed even when the vendor does not change.
Do we still have to maintain the MSAG after moving to NG911?
Through transition, agencies commonly run GIS data and the legacy MSAG and ALI in parallel and are expected to keep them synchronized, because legacy elements stay in service until they are decommissioned. Synchronization and discrepancy resolution are part of readiness work rather than something that follows it. The obligation ends when your state and the originating service providers retire the legacy path, and those schedules differ from place to place.
What drives the cost and schedule of NG911 GIS readiness work?
The main drivers are the number of addressable locations, how many independent sources of address data exist and how far apart they are, the condition of boundary data, and whether address assignment authority is centralized. A jurisdiction with one addressing authority and a maintained address point layer has far less to reconcile than one working across assessor, utility, and dispatch records. Standing up the maintenance workflow, rather than the initial cleanup, is usually what determines whether the result holds.