Collaboration and NG9-1-1
Why NG9-1-1 GIS data is a shared responsibility, and how GIVE is built for it
By Brian Brady, GISP, COO and VP Business Development, Gistic Research, Inc. · October 2026 · About 17 minutes · Download PDF
A 9-1-1 call does not stop at the county line
In legacy 9-1-1, a jurisdiction could maintain its own MSAG and ALI tables and, for the most part, mind its own business. Next Generation 9-1-1 ends that arrangement. Under the NENA i3 architecture, the Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF) routes a call by locating the caller inside a GIS polygon, and the Location Validation Function (LVF) validates an address against GIS road centerlines and address points. The map is no longer a reference layer behind the dispatcher. The map is the routing table.
That single change turns GIS data from a local product into a shared responsibility. A PSAP boundary is only as reliable as the boundary on the other side of the line. A road that crosses a county edge must end where the neighbor’s road begins. A community name must mean the same thing in every layer that uses it, in every agency that touches it. None of these conditions can be met by one organization working alone.
This paper looks at the NG9-1-1 collaboration landscape as it stands in late 2026: why the architecture and the standards make collaboration structural, who the players and partners are, what the collaboration gap is costing agencies today, how states have organized around it, and where GIVE and Gistic Research fit as a software and services partner built for exactly this problem.
The standards assume collaboration. Most workflows do not.
NENA’s GIS standards are explicit that NG9-1-1 data crosses jurisdictions. NENA-STA-006.3-2026, the NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model approved in March 2026, defines the required layers (road centerlines, site/structure address points, PSAP, fire, police and EMS polygons, and provisioning boundaries) and states that data “may not be confined within a jurisdiction” and will be consolidated into region-wide and statewide databases. NENA-STA-005, on provisioning GIS data to the ECRF and LVF, requires that service boundaries not overlap, that the ECRF/LVF detect gaps and overlaps automatically and return discrepancy reports, and that data providers “work with neighboring and associated agencies” to resolve them before the effective date. NENA-INF-028, the GIS data stewardship document, goes further: PSAP boundaries “are not allowed to have gaps or overlaps with neighboring PSAP boundaries,” and it recommends agreed snap-to points where one provider’s data ends and the next begins.
The National 911 Program summarized the gap plainly in its March 2023 GIS status report: the level of coordination between jurisdictions, especially those without advanced GIS capabilities, “was the most common hurdle for managing NG911-specific GIS data,” and the lack of local and national governance documentation sits beside it on the list of challenges. The standards describe a collaborative outcome. The tools most agencies use were built for a single editor working on a single dataset.
Data moves left to right, but the first authoritative check often happens three steps away from the people who can correct it, and a 9-1-1 authority’s shared edge with its neighbor is validated as if each side were alone.
Who touches the data, and what each one needs from it
NG9-1-1 GIS data passes through more hands than any other dataset a 9-1-1 authority maintains. Each participant has a different relationship to the data, and collaboration fails when a tool serves one of them at the expense of the rest.
A note on terms. This paper uses 9-1-1 authority in NENA’s sense: the state, county, regional or other governmental entity responsible for 9-1-1 service in an area. Which entity that is varies from state to state. In some states it is the county. In others it is an Emergency Communications District (ECD), a special-purpose district created under state law to fund and operate 9-1-1 service for a city, a county or a region. Alabama, for example, has 85 ECDs: one for each of its 67 counties plus 18 municipal districts, including the Birmingham Municipal ECD. In this paper, county refers to geography; 9-1-1 authority refers to the body responsible for the data.
The first two columns are the only ones that can change the data; the next two live with the result; the last sets the rules all of them follow.
| Participant | Role in the data chain | What they need from everyone else |
|---|---|---|
| Local addressing authorities (cities, towns, counties) | Create and own the authoritative source: new addresses, street names, annexations, road changes | Visibility into neighbors’ edges; a schema that does not force them to abandon local fields |
| 9-1-1 authorities (county, municipal, ECD or regional) and their GIS coordinators | Maintain the NG9-1-1 layers, resolve validation findings, submit to the state or NGCS provider | Fast feedback on errors; a way to coordinate shared boundaries without email and shapefiles |
| GIS consultants and regional councils | Maintain data for agencies that lack GIS staff, often across many clients | One secure login across client accounts, with each agency keeping ownership and audit control |
| State 9-1-1 programs and GIS offices | Aggregate local 9-1-1 authorities’ data into a statewide dataset, enforce the state standard, feed the National Address Database | Current local data without re-keying; layer-level health across every participating agency |
| ESInet and NGCS providers | Provision GIS layers into the ECRF and LVF; reject or flag layers through discrepancy reports | Gap-free, overlap-free boundaries and standards-conformant layers on the provisioning cadence |
| GIS validation and data-services vendors | Validate, aggregate and in some cases remediate data on behalf of states and local 9-1-1 authorities | Clear rules, authoritative reference layers, and a defined process for cross-border conditions |
| CAD and call-handling vendors | Consume centerlines and address points for dispatch maps and location display | Current, published data that matches what the NGCS is routing on |
| GIS platform, device-location and indoor-mapping providers | Supply the editing environment, caller location, and building maps that the GIS must reconcile with | Standards-based services they can consume without custom integration |
| Standards bodies and associations (NENA, APCO, NSGIC, NASNA, state GIS councils) | Define the data model, provisioning rules and stewardship guidance; convene the people | Practitioners who adopt the standard rather than work around it |
Two trends in this landscape matter for anyone choosing partners. First, GIS validation is consolidating into larger platforms and NGCS bundles: in 2025 and 2026, rules-based validation engines changed hands, an NGCS provider took an exclusive channel for one of them, and several call-handling and CAD vendors acquired mapping companies. An agency that buys validation inside its network contract gets convenience, and also ties its data quality to its network vendor. Second, the consumers of GIS data (CAD, call handling, device location) are not the validators of it, which leaves a clear role for a vendor-neutral environment where the data is actually fixed before anyone downstream has to live with it.
What the collaboration gap costs
The evidence from states that have measured it is consistent: the tabular data looks fine, the spatial relationships do not, and the people available to fix them are few.
- Montana measured its 56 PSAPs before NG9-1-1 and found 1,637 emergency service zone gaps and 1,670 overlaps across 23 PSAPs, plus more than 461,000 duplicate-geometry address records. Fifty of 56 PSAPs met the 98 percent ALI-to-MSAG benchmark at the same time. By the state’s 2024 status report, only 7 of 53 PSAPs had aggregated boundaries into the statewide dataset.
- Pennsylvania surveyed 42 counties in early 2025: 86 percent of PSAPs have one or two GIS staff supporting NG9-1-1, 19 percent have unfilled GIS positions, and 64 percent expect to need more staff within five years.
- Texas aggregates data from 20 regional planning commissions and dozens of emergency communication districts; its statewide system still carried 4,537 open GIS errors, 275 of them critical, after a year of coordinated cleanup, because the source data arrived “in silos” in different schemas and projections.
- A national public-safety consultancy reports that validating an agency’s GIS against legacy ALI and MSAG takes an average of 18 months, and lists “failure to coordinate GIS data matching with neighboring jurisdictions” among the top pitfalls.
The 98 percent synchronization benchmark deserves a word on its own. It measures how well tabular MSAG and ALI records match the GIS. It says nothing about whether two neighboring PSAP polygons meet cleanly, and Michigan’s March 2026 best practices keep the 98 percent benchmark while separately calling for no unintentional gaps or overlaps in the PSAP and emergency service boundary layers. The Florida NENA chapter has made the same case under the title “Beyond 98.” An agency can pass the legacy benchmark and still be unroutable at its own borders.
The pattern in Gistic’s six-month implementation plan, Zero to Compliance in Six Months, is the same pattern these numbers describe. Of the four conditions that stretch a timeline, the first is a neighboring agency that is not participating, because shared-boundary reconciliation cannot always be completed unilaterally. Software cannot remove that dependency. It can make the dependency visible, early, to both sides.
How states have organized collaboration
Every state has had to answer the same question: who holds the pen on a shared boundary, and how does local data become a statewide layer? The answers fall into five recognizable models. Each solves part of the problem.
| Model | How it works | Examples | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centralized validation | The state runs validation on data submitted by local 9-1-1 authorities and returns findings | Arizona (statewide data supply chain), Minnesota | Statewide consistency, one rule set | Validation happens after submission; the local 9-1-1 authority still corrects in a separate desktop tool and resubmits |
| Hub service | A state or contracted hub aggregates and edge-matches local data | North Carolina (124 PSAPs), Michigan (83 counties), Tennessee, Ohio, Iowa | A reliable statewide layer and a path to the National Address Database | Correction is a service, not a local capability; the local system of record can drift from the hub |
| In-house tools | The state builds desktop add-ins and templates for local 9-1-1 authorities | Oklahoma, Kansas | Tailored to the state standard | Requires GIS staff at each local 9-1-1 authority; QC remains post hoc |
| Negotiated boundaries | Neighbors agree on each boundary segment and document it to the state | Virginia (“mutually agreed to by PSAPs on both sides”), Pennsylvania (PSAP boundary template; two neighboring counties’ standing data-sharing cooperative) | Clear authority and a record of each decision | Works only as fast as the slowest neighbor; agreements age as roads and annexations change |
| Locally empowered | Local 9-1-1 authorities choose their own tools and submit to the state or NGCS provider | Florida | Local control and speed of adoption | Fragmentation across the state; neighbors on different tools cannot see each other’s edges |
Alabama’s 911 Board took a different route, procuring a multi-agency SaaS environment in which local districts with and without GIS staff, consultants, and the Board’s own GIS team work on the same data. In Gistic’s experience across these models, the distinction that matters most is not centralized versus local. It is whether validation and correction happen in the same place, at the same time, with both sides of a boundary able to see it. Where they do not, every model above reproduces the same cycle: submit, wait for a report, correct somewhere else, resubmit.
GIVE: collaboration built into the data environment
GIVE was designed from the premise that NG9-1-1 GIS data is inherently shared, so the environment that maintains it has to be shared too. Rather than adding a collaboration feature to a single-agency editor, GIVE makes multi-agency work the default condition and single-agency work a special case of it. Five design decisions carry that premise.
Spokes keep ownership and editing authority; the hub gives the state visibility and gives neighbors a shared view of the same edge; publication feeds downstream systems from the same record the editors are working on.
Hub-and-spoke federation. Local agencies operate as spokes and a regional or statewide environment serves as the hub. Each agency keeps ownership and editing authority over its own data while contributing to a coordinated repository. State administrators can monitor participating agencies, review live or most recently published data, evaluate data-health indicators, and assign layer-level responsibilities. They do not approve individual local edits. The state gets current local data without file exchange; the local 9-1-1 authority keeps the pen.
Neighbors as reference, not rumor. Neighboring agency data can be displayed as reference information, so a disconnected road, a duplicate address or a boundary gap at a shared edge is visible from both sides. Cross-jurisdictional conditions appear in both agencies’ quality control counts. Neither side is working blind, and neither side can quietly declare a shared edge finished. Editing privileges can be restricted by jurisdiction, role or geographic boundary, including geofenced areas for shared city and county maintenance. Shared bookmarks with integrated messaging, to coordinate resolution of a specific location between neighboring agencies, are in development.
PACT, with Collaboration as a first-class step. Validation tells an agency what is wrong. GIVE’s PACT resolution methodology (Priority, Anchoring, Collaboration, Topology) tells it what to fix first. Priority resolves boundaries before road centerlines and road centerlines before address points. Anchoring reconciles lower-order geography against validated higher-order geography. Collaboration treats conditions along shared jurisdictional edges as work to be coordinated rather than resolved unilaterally. Topology establishes geometric integrity before dependent relationships are relied on. PACT is applied inside the platform: content validation rules carry a PACT classification, so the order is not left to individual judgment.
GAIN domain inheritance. Consistent controlled values are where multi-agency data most often falls apart: one agency’s “Maricopa County” is another’s “Maricopa.” GIVE’s GAIN domain controller (Geometry, Alias, Inheritance, Names) is preloaded with NENA registry values and supports local, state and national hierarchies. A state publishes a reference set of domain values; each participating agency inherits it and extends it with the values specific to its own jurisdiction. Sanctioned aliases resolve to the same entity without weakening the standard, and containment relationships (city within county within state) are applied as values are used.
Lossless schema mapping and open publication. Agencies do not have to abandon local fields or run a second dataset to participate. GIVE preserves original attributes, maps them to the state and NENA schemas, and lets a user edit the same record through local, state, NENA, or legacy MSAG and ALI views. On the way out, GIVE publishes WFS, WMS, WMTS, OGC API Features, Esri-compatible feature services, vector tiles, GeoJSON, file geodatabases, and MSAG and ALI downloads, so CAD vendors, NGCS providers and state repositories consume the same current data the editors are working on.
Taken together, these decisions close the loop the standards describe but most workflows leave open: detect a cross-border condition, show it to both parties, resolve it in the order the geography requires, and publish the result once. The term GIVE-Verified describes data in that condition, maintained in GIVE, that has passed the platform’s validation rules and aligns to the current NENA data model. It describes the data, not an external certification.
Gistic Research as a software and services partner
Gistic Research has built collaborative GIS and data-quality software for public agencies since 2005. Its founder, Bo Guo, PhD, PE, created GIS SaaS platforms for linear referencing and NG9-1-1 and contributed to ISO GIS standards. Brian Brady, GISP, brings nearly forty years in GIS, two terms as AGIC president, co-authorship of the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS data model, and leadership of Arizona’s NG9-1-1 GIS pilot. That combination, a standards author and a platform engineer in a small company, is why GIVE tracks the standard closely (it supports the NENA-STA-006.3 data model released in 2026) and why the company can work alongside the other participants rather than in place of them.
In practice, Gistic partners at each level of the chain:
- With 9-1-1 authorities and addressing authorities, GIVE is a browser-based platform with no desktop GIS requirement, population-based pricing and unlimited users, so a city addressing clerk and a county GIS analyst can work in the same environment. Agencies with limited GIS experience are typically productive after about five hours of training spread over several sessions. Most agencies are onboarded within twenty-four hours.
- With GIS consultants and regional councils, the Integrator Role lets an authorized provider work across multiple client environments through a single secure login while each client remains a separate account with its own transaction and audit history. The agency system owner approves each integrator invitation and assigns each role. This is how a rural agency outsources the work without outsourcing ownership.
- With state 9-1-1 programs, GIVE provides the hub: state standards and shared GIS resources (imagery, feature services, reference documents) are configured once and inherited by every participating agency; the state collects only what agencies have published, and an agency cannot publish data it does not own. Gistic’s NG9-1-1 Data Services team can also remediate data using GIVE where a state or agency prefers to buy the outcome rather than the seat.
- With NGCS providers and CAD vendors, GIVE is deliberately vendor-neutral. It consumes live OGC and Esri-compatible services as reference layers and publishes standards-based services that the ECRF/LVF operator, the dispatch map and the state repository can consume directly. Gistic does not operate an ESInet and has no interest in locking GIS validation inside one. A public API allows authorized external applications, such as CAD, to create bookmarks on specific data conditions so dispatch and GIS staff stay aligned.
- With the standards community, Gistic actively participates in NENA data standards and several state GIS forums, and GIVE’s QC rules, GAIN registry values and schema views are maintained against the current NENA model as it changes.
GIVE is in production in Florida, West Virginia and Missouri, and has been onboarded for pilot in Washington State, Alabama, Arizona and Tennessee, including multi-county arrangements where neighboring agencies share one environment. References are available on request.
Collaboration is a condition, not a meeting
The NG9-1-1 standards were written on the assumption that neighboring agencies would coordinate their data. The staffing surveys, the gap-and-overlap counts and the eighteen-month validation timelines show what happens when that coordination depends on goodwill, email and a quarterly workshop. The agencies that are getting through the transition have put the coordination into the data environment itself: both sides see the same edge, the system knows which side is authoritative, and the fix is made once.
That is the problem GIVE was built for. If your agency, region or state is working through shared boundaries, inconsistent community names, or a provisioning cycle that keeps returning the same discrepancies, we would welcome the chance to show you how GIVE handles it with your own data and your neighbor’s.
About the author
Brian Brady, GISP, is COO and VP of Business Development at Gistic Research, Inc. He has nearly forty years in the GIS industry, served two terms as president of the Arizona Geographic Information Council, co-authored the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS data model, and led Arizona’s GIS pilot for NG9-1-1. He writes regularly about NG9-1-1 GIS standards, data quality, collaboration, and the practical realities of moving from legacy workflows into continuously maintained NG9-1-1 environments.
About Gistic Research
Gistic Research, Inc. has developed collaborative GIS and data-quality software for public agencies since 2005. GIVE is its browser-based platform for developing, validating, publishing and maintaining NG9-1-1 GIS data across local, regional and state agencies. The company also offers GIVE Location Services, NG9-1-1 data remediation services, multi-session user training on an agency’s own data, and A3i model training for legacy address normalization. GIVE supports the NENA-STA-006.3 NG9-1-1 GIS data model.
For a demonstration or to discuss a no-cost trial, contact info@gisticinc.com or Brian Brady, GISP, COO and VP Business Development, at brian.brady@gisticinc.com. Learn more at gisticinc.com.
References
- NENA-STA-006.3-2026, NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model (approved March 11, 2026)
- NENA-STA-005.1.2-2022, Provisioning and Maintenance of GIS Data to ECRFs and LVFs
- NENA-INF-028.1-2020, GIS Data Stewardship
- NENA-STA-010.3b-2021, i3 Standard for NG9-1-1
- National 911 Program, Current Status of 911 GIS Technologies (March 2023)
- Montana State Library, NG9-1-1 GIS Assessment Statistics (2019) and NG911 GIS Status Report (2024)
- PEMA, Pennsylvania GIS Staffing Issues Survey Report (2025)
- Texas CSEC / TNRIS, The Journey of GIS Data and NG911 (2022)
- Consultancy insight: Getting GIS data ready for NG911 (2020)
- Michigan DTMB, NG911 GIS Best Practices v1.0 (March 2026)
- Florida NENA, Beyond 98
- Virginia VGIN, NG9-1-1 GIS Recommendations Part 1: Boundaries
- NC 911 Board, Connecting NG911 GIS Services
- Tennessee STS-GIS, NG911 project
- Minnesota NG911 GIS Hub
- FHWA, E911/NG911 GIS Peer Exchange Report (June 2022)
- Gistic Research, Beyond Integration: The GIVE Vision for NG9-1-1 (August 2026); Brian Brady, Zero to Compliance in Six Months (Sept 2026)