Airport Passenger Screening: Preliminary Observations on Progress
Made and Challenges Remaining (24-SEP-03, GAO-03-1173). 	 
                                                                 
Passenger screening is critical to the security of our nation's  
aviation system, particularly in the aftermath of the September  
11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Transportation Security	 
Administration (TSA) is tasked with securing all modes of	 
transportation, including the screening of airline passengers.	 
TSA has met numerous requirements in this regard, such as	 
deploying more than 50,000 federal screeners at over 440	 
commercial airports nationwide. To determine whether TSA's	 
passenger screening program is achieving its intended results,	 
GAO is conducting an ongoing evaluation of TSA's efforts to (1)  
ensure that passenger screeners are effectively trained and	 
supervised, (2) measure screener performance in detecting threat 
objects, and (3) implement and evaluate the contract screening	 
pilot program.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1173					        
    ACCNO:   A08585						        
  TITLE:     Airport Passenger Screening: Preliminary Observations on 
Progress Made and Challenges Remaining				 
     DATE:   09/24/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness				 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Transportation industry				 
	     Transportation safety				 
	     Homeland security					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-1173

United States General Accounting Office

      GAO 	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
          Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

September 2003

AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING

       Preliminary Observations on Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

GAO-03-1173

Highlights of GAO-03-1173, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives

Passenger screening is critical to the security of our nation's aviation
system, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is tasked with
securing all modes of transportation, including the screening of airline
passengers. TSA has met numerous requirements in this regard, such as
deploying more than 50,000 federal screeners at over 440 commercial
airports nationwide. To determine whether TSA's passenger screening
program is achieving its intended results, GAO is conducting an ongoing
evaluation of TSA's efforts to (1) ensure that passenger screeners are
effectively trained and supervised, (2) measure screener performance in
detecting threat objects, and (3) implement and evaluate the contract
screening pilot program.

Because our evaluation is ongoing and our results are preliminary, we are
not making any recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1173.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cathleen A. Berrick, (202)
512-8777, or [email protected].

September 24, 2003

AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING

Preliminary Observations on Progress Made and Challenges Remaining

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was tasked with the
tremendous challenge of building a large federal agency responsible for
securing all modes of transportation, while simultaneously meeting
ambitious deadlines to enhance the security of the nation's aviation
system. Although TSA has made significant progress related to its
passenger screening program, challenges remain.

TSA recognized that ongoing training of screeners on a frequent basis, and
effective supervisory training, is critical to maintaining and enhancing
skills. However, TSA has not fully developed or deployed recurrent or
supervisory training programs. Although TSA has not yet deployed these
programs, it has taken steps in establishing recurrent and supervisory
training, including developing six recurrent training modules that will
soon be deployed to all airports, as well as working with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School to tailor its
off-the-shelf supervisory course to the specific training needs of TSA's
screening supervisors.

TSA currently collects little information regarding screener performance
in detecting threat objects. The primary source of information collected
on screener's ability to detect threat objects is covert testing conducted
by TSA's Office of Internal Affairs and Program Review. However, TSA does
not consider the results of these tests as a measure of screener
performance, but rather a "snapshot" of a screener's ability to detect
threat objects at a particular point in time. Additionally, TSA does not
currently use the Threat Image Projection system, which places images of
threat objects on x-ray screens during actual operations and records
whether screeners identify the threat. However, TSA plans to fully
activate the Threat Image Projection system with significantly more threat
images than previously used, as well as implement an annual screener
certification program in October 2003. TSA also recently completed a
screener performance improvement study and is taking steps to address the
deficiencies identified during the study.

As required by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, TSA
implemented a pilot program using contract screeners in lieu of federal
screeners at 5 commercial airports. However, TSA has not yet determined
how to evaluate and measure the performance of the pilot program airports,
or prepare for airports potentially applying to opt-out of using federal
screeners, as allowed by the act, beginning in November 2004. Although TSA
has not begun evaluating the performance of the pilot program airports, it
plans to award a contract by October 1, 2003, to compare the performance
of pilot screeners with federal screeners and determine the reasons for
any differences. Numerous airport operators have contacted TSA to express
an interest in obtaining more information to assist in their decision
regarding opting-out of using federal screeners.

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Scope and Methodology
Recurrent and Supervisory Training Programs Not Fully Developed
Little Information Exists to Measure Screeners' Performance in

Detecting Threat Objects
An Assessment of the Contract Screening Pilot Program Has Not
Yet Begun
TSA Continuing to Work to Identify Appropriate Staffing Levels at
the Nation's Airports

1

2 4 6 7

10

14

15

Appendix I 	Examples of Information Collected and Maintained in the
Transportation Security Administration's Performance Management
Information System

  Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 19

GAO Contacts 19
Staff Acknowledgments 19

Abbreviations

AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
ACI Airports Council International
ATSA Aviation and Transportation Security Act
DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FSD Federal Security Directors
LMS On-Line Learning Management System
OIAPR Office of Internal Affairs and Program Review
OIG Office of Inspector General
OJT on-the-job training
PMIS Performance Management Information System
SOP standard operating procedure
TIP Threat Image Projection
TSA Transportation Security Administration
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

September 24, 2003

The Honorable John Mica
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Passenger screening is a critical component to the security of our
nation's
aviation system. Passenger screeners use metal detectors, X-ray machines,
explosive trace detection machines, and physical searches to examine
passengers and their baggage to identify threat objects. On November 19,
2001, prompted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
President signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),
with a primary goal of strengthening the security of the nation's aviation
system. ATSA created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
and mandated specific improvements to aviation security, including the
federalization of passenger screening at over 440 commercial airports in
the United States by November 19, 2002.

TSA was tasked with the tremendous challenge of building a large federal
agency responsible for securing all modes of transportation, while
simultaneously meeting ambitious deadlines to federalize aviation security
as mandated by ATSA. TSA has met numerous requirements related to its
passenger screening program, including deploying more than 50,000
federal screeners at over 440 commercial airports nationwide, developing
and implementing a basic screener training program, and establishing a
pilot program at 5 airports where screening of passengers and property
would be conducted by private screening companies and overseen by TSA.

To determine whether TSA's passenger screening program is achieving its
intended results, the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, requested that we review various
aspects of the program. Specifically, the Subcommittee asked that we
evaluate TSA's efforts to (1) ensure that passenger screeners are
effectively trained and supervised, (2) measure screener performance in
detecting threat objects, (3) implement and evaluate the contract
screening pilot program, and (4) address airport-specific staffing needs,
while reducing the screener workforce. On September 5, 2003, we briefed

  Results in Brief

the Subcommittee staff on our preliminary observations of TSA's passenger
screening program based on our work to date.

This report summarizes and updates the information presented at that
briefing. Because our work is still on going, the observations discussed
in this report are preliminary.

In conducting our work, we obtained and reviewed TSA documentation related
to screener training, testing and supervision; the contract screening
pilot program; screener staffing levels; and airport security concerns. We
also interviewed relevant officials at TSA headquarters and field offices,
airports, and several aviation associations. A more detailed description
of our scope and methodology is contained later in this report.

TSA has deployed basic and remedial screener training programs, but has
not fully developed or deployed a recurrent or supervisory training
program to ensure to ensure that screeners are effectively trained and
supervised. However, recognizing that training of screeners on a frequent
basis and effective supervision are critical to screener performance, TSA
has taken some positive steps in this direction. These steps include
designing an On-Line Learning Management System (LMS) that will be fielded
in October 2003, and working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Graduate School to tailor its off-the-shelf supervisory course to
the specific training needs of TSA's screening supervisors.

TSA currently collects little information to measure screener performance
in detecting threat objects. The primary source of information collected
on screeners' ability to detect threat objects is operational testing
conducted by TSA's Office of Internal Affairs and Program Review (OIAPR).1
However, TSA does not consider the results of OIAPR's covert tests as a
measure of screener performance, but rather a "snapshot" of a screener's
ability to detect threat objects at a particular point in time, and as a
system-wide performance indicator. In addition, the Threat Image
Projection (TIP) system, which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
deployed in late 1999 to measure and improve screener performance in

1TSA defines an operational screening test as any covert test of a
screener, conducted by TSA, on any screener function to assess the
screener's threat item detection ability and/or adherence to TSA-approved
procedures.

detecting threat objects, was shut down immediately following the
September 11th terrorist attacks for fear that it would result in
screening delays and panic.2 However, TSA officials reported that they
have recently begun fielding TIP to airports, with significantly more
threat images than used by the FAA. Further, TSA has not yet implemented
an ATSA requirement for an annual proficiency review for all screeners,
but plans to begin implementing an annual screener certification program
in October 2003. TSA also developed a Performance Management Information
System (PMIS) to collect and maintain information on the performance of
TSA's passenger and baggage screening operations. However, PMIS contains
little information on screener performance in detecting threat objects.3

Consistent with ATSA, TSA implemented a pilot program using contract
screeners at 5 commercial airports, but has not yet determined how to
evaluate and measure the performance of the pilot program airports.
However, TSA plans to award a contract by October 1, 2003, to compare the
performance of pilot screeners with federal screeners and determine the
reasons for any differences. While the purpose of the screener pilot
program is to determine the feasibility of using private screening
companies rather than federal screeners, TSA initially required private
screening companies to adhere to all of the procedures and protocols used
by federal screeners. However, TSA recently provided the contractors with
some flexibility, such as allowing them to determine and maintain their
own staffing levels and to make independent hiring decisions. ATSA also
gives airport operators the option of applying to transition from using
federal screeners to private screeners beginning in November 2004;
however, TSA has not begun to plan for the possible transition of airports
from a federal system to a private screening company. Numerous airport
operators have contacted TSA to express an interest in obtaining more
information to assist in their decision regarding using private screeners.

To address airport-specific staffing needs and accomplish workforce
reduction goals, TSA developed a staffing model to determine staffing

2TIP places images of threat objects on x-ray screens during actual
operations and records whether screeners identify the threat. TIP was
designed by FAA to help screeners remain alert, train them to become more
adept at detecting harder to spot threat objects, and continuously measure
screener performance.

3TSA officials recently reported that they plan to modify PMIS to collect
data on screener performance in the future.

Background

levels at each airport, and recently hired an outside consultant to assist
the agency in determining whether identified staffing levels are
appropriate. Federal Security Directors (FSD), who are responsible for
overseeing security at each of the nation's commercial airports, have
expressed concern that they have had limited authority to respond to
airport specific staffing needs, such as reacting to fluctuations in daily
and/or seasonal passenger flow. TSA headquarters officials acknowledged
that their initial staffing efforts created imbalances in the screener
workforce and have taken steps to correct identified imbalances, such as
such as authorizing the hiring of part-time screeners at over 200
airports-the first of which began working on September 15, 2003.

Because our observations are preliminary and our evaluation is ongoing, we
are not making recommendations at this time.

TSA officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

ATSA created TSA as an agency within the Department of Transportation
(DOT) to ensure security for all modes of transportation, to include
aviation.4 ATSA set forth specific enhancements to aviation security for
TSA to implement and established deadlines for completing many of them.
These enhancements included federalizing passenger screeners at more than
440 commercial airports by November 19, 2002;5 screening checked baggage
for explosives by December 31, 2002; enhancing screener training
standards; and establishing and managing a 2-year pilot program at five
airports-one in each airport category-where screening of passengers and
property would be conducted by a private screening company and overseen by
TSA. Additionally, ATSA included a provision that allows airport operators
to apply to opt-out of using federal screeners in favor of private
screeners beginning November 19, 2004.

Prior to the passage of ATSA, air carriers were responsible for screening
passengers and most used private security firms to perform this function.
Longstanding concerns existed regarding screener performance in

4The Homeland Security Act, signed into law on November 25, 2002,
transferred TSA to the new Department of Homeland Security.

5The December 31, 2002, deadline was extended to December 31, 2003, in
some cases by the Homeland Security Act.

detecting threat objects. Inadequate training and poor supervision, along
with rapid turnover and inadequate attention to human factors, were
historically identified as key contributors to poor screener performance.6
As early as 1987, we reported that too little attention had been paid to
(1) individual aptitudes for effectively performing screening duties; (2)
the sufficiency of screener training and screeners' ability to comprehend
training; and (3) the monotony of the job and distractions that reduced
screeners' vigilance.7 Additional studies have shown that effective
training can lead to more effective performance and lower turnover rates
for passenger screeners.

Concerns have long existed over screeners' inability to detect threat
objects during covert tests at passenger screening checkpoints. In 1978,
screeners failed to detect 13 percent of the potentially dangerous objects
FAA agents carried through checkpoints during tests-a level that was
considered "significant and alarming."8 In 1987, screeners did not detect
20 percent of the objects during the same types of tests.9 In addition, we
reported that FAA tests conducted between 1991 and 1999 showed that
screeners' ability to detect objects was not improving, and in some cases
was worsening. In tests conducted in the late 1990s, as the testing
objects became more realistic and more closely approximated how a
terrorist might attempt to penetrate a checkpoint, screeners' ability to
detect dangerous objects declined even further.10

6U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Long-Standing Problems
Impair Airport Screeners' Performance, GAO/RCED-00-75 (Washington, D.C.:
June 28, 2000). "Human factors" refers to the demands a job places on the
capabilities of, and the constraints it imposes on, the individuals
performing the function. Reports on the human factors involved in
checkpoint screening date back more than 20 years and include repetitive
tasks screeners perform, the close and constant monitoring required to
detect threat objects, and the stress involved in dealing with the public,
who may dislike being screened or demand faster action to avoid missing
their flights.

7U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Slow Progress in
Addressing Long-Standing Screener Performance Problems, GAO/T-RCED-00-125
(Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2000).

8U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities Still
Exist in the Aviation Security System, GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-00-142 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 6, 2000).

9See footnote 8.

10U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts
Demonstrate Urgent Need to Improve Security at the Nation's Airports,
GAO-01-1162T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2001).

  Scope and Methodology

Our preliminary observations are based on our review of TSA documentation
related to screener training, testing, and supervision; the contract
screening pilot program; screener staffing levels; and airport security
concerns. We interviewed TSA headquarters' officials in Arlington,
Virginia; and interviewed FSDs, their staffs, and screeners at 12
commercial airports throughout the nation;11 10 airport operators;
officials at 5 air carriers; and officials from 4 aviation associations-
American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), Airports Council
International (ACI), Air Transport Association, and Regional Airline
Association. We also reviewed our prior reports that addressed issues
related to the performance of airport passenger screeners. We conducted
our work from May through September 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Because our review is still
ongoing, the results presented in this report are preliminary.

To complete our work, we will continue to collect and review TSA
documentation related to each of our four objectives, including obtaining
and analyzing the results of TSA's operational tests. We will also
administer a survey to all 158 FSDs to obtain their perspectives on
general and airport specific information related to each of our four
objectives. Additionally, we will visit at least 8 additional airports to
conduct interviews with FSDs, their staffs, members of the screener
workforce, and airport operators. We will also interview representatives
of all 5 pilot program airports, as well as airport operators at all
category X airports, to obtain information on their coordination with TSA
and their plans, if any, to apply to opt-out of the federal screening
program beginning November 19, 2004. Finally, we will continue to meet
with TSA headquarters officials to obtain current information related to
the issues addressed in this report. We anticipate issuing a final report
in April 2004.

11As of September 19, 2003, we have visited the following 12 commercial
airports: Baltimore-Washington International; Dallas-Ft. Worth
International; Dallas Love-Field; Kansas City International; Little Rock
National; Orlando International; Orlando Sanford; Portland International;
Seattle-Tacoma International; Tampa International; Washington-Dulles
International; and Washington Reagan National.

  Recurrent and Supervisory Training Programs Not Fully Developed

TSA developed basic and remedial screener training programs, but has not
fully developed or deployed a recurrent or supervisory training program to
ensure that screeners are effectively trained and supervised.
Comprehensive and frequent training is key to passenger screeners' ability
to detect threat objects. Studies have shown that on-going training can
lead to more effective performance and lower turnover rates for passenger
screeners. According to TSA, there are three key elements of passenger
screener training: (1) basic training, (2) remedial training, and (3)
recurrent training. As required by ATSA, TSA established a basic
screener-training program comprised of 40 hours of classroom instruction
and 60 hours of on-the-job training (OJT). TSA reported that all of its
screeners who work independently have completed basic screener training
and that those who failed an operational test received required remedial
training.12

                                 Basic Training

TSA requires screeners to complete a minimum of 40 hours of classroom
instruction and 60 hours of OJT prior to making independent screening
decisions. This requirement is an increase over FAA's basic training
requirements when it oversaw passenger screening, which called for 12
hours of classroom instruction and 40 hours of OJT. According to TSA
officials, all screeners who work independently have met the basic
screener training requirements.13 TSA contractors are responsible for
delivering and tracking basic screener classroom training, while OJT is
tracked locally at each airport. TSA encourages, but does not require,
screening managers, who are responsible for overseeing screening functions
to participate in classroom training, even if they do not have prior
screening experience. Nevertheless, 2 of the 12 FSDs we interviewed said
that they require their screening managers to observe basic screener
training.

Remedial Training 	Consistent with ATSA, TSA requires remedial training
for any screener who fails an operational test and prohibits screeners
from performing the screening function related to the test they failed
until they successfully

12The PMIS currently reports the breakdown of those screeners trained for
passenger and baggage screening as well as the number of cross-trained
screeners by airport.

13We plan to verify whether passenger screeners received basic training as
required during the remainder of our evaluation.

complete the training.14 FSDs must certify that screeners identified as
requiring remedial training complete the training before they can perform
the screening function identified as a performance weakness. TSA's
Aviation Operations Division is responsible for tracking the completion of
remedial training following the failure of covert tests. The tracking of
remedial training initiated for reasons other than failing a covert test
is the responsibility of the FSDs or their designees. TSA reported that
all screeners requiring remedial training have received the training.15

                               Recurrent Training

TSA has not fully developed or deployed a recurrent training program, but
has recognized that ongoing training of screeners on a frequent basis is
critical to maintaining and enhancing screener skills. According to agency
officials, TSA established a training task force comprised of airport
Training Coordinators, screeners, and headquarters officials to conduct an
assessment of training needs. As a result of the task force's suggestions,
TSA is developing six recurrent training modules-the first of which TSA
plans to deploy to all airports beginning in October 2003. TSA plans to
release each of the remaining five modules as they are finalized, which
they anticipate will occur throughout 2004. TSA officials also said that
they designed and are currently pilot testing an On-Line Learning
Management System (LMS) comprised of 366 various training courses, which
they expect to field in October 2003. Officials said that they were not
further along in implementing their recurrent training modules or LMS due
to budget considerations.

Fourteen of the 22 passenger screeners and supervisors we interviewed
expressed the need for recurrent training.16 They were particularly
interested in receiving additional training related to recognizing x-ray
images of threat objects. In addition, 10 of the 12 FSDs we interviewed
reported implementing their own locally developed recurrent training
courses rather than waiting for the training modules to be deployed by

14Screening supervisors and managers may also require screeners to
participate in corrective action training based on their observations of
performance deficiencies, such as failure to follow a standard operating
procedure.

15We plan to verify whether identified passenger screeners received 3
hours of remedial training as required by TSA during the remainder of our
evaluation.

16 As we did not select statistical samples of passenger screeners and
supervisors to interview, the views of those we interviewed should not be
considered representative of the views of all screeners and supervisors at
the airports we visited.

headquarters. TSA's OIAPR found that screeners at airports that conducted
frequent, on-going training performed better during covert tests-TSA's
form of operational testing-than screeners who did not receive recurrent
training.

                              Supervisory Training

TSA describes its screening supervisors as the key to a strong defense in
detecting threat objects. In September 2001, we reported on the results of
our survey of aviation stakeholders and aviation and terrorism experts
concerning options for conducting screening. The respondents identified
better supervision as one of the factors necessary for improving screener
performance.17 Additionally, DOT's Office Inspector General (OIG) recently
reported that screener supervisors are the key to effective screening,18
and TSA's OIAPR identified a lack of supervisory training as a cause for
screener testing failures. FSDs and TSA headquarters officials recognize
the need to enhance the skills of screening supervisors through
supervisory training.TSA is currently working with USDA to tailor its
off-the-shelf supervisory course to the specific needs of TSA's screening
supervisors. TSA recently reported that it is sending supervisors to the
basic USDA supervisor's course until the customized course is fielded,
which it expects to occur in April 2004. To supplement the classroom
training, TSA also plans to establish a supervisory training module for
recurrent training. We plan to review TSA's training initiatives further
during the remainder of our evaluation.

17U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Vulnerabilities in,
and Alternatives for, Preboard Screening Security Operations, GAO-01-1171T
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2001). The survey respondents identified
compensation and improved training as the highest priorities of improving
screener performance. In addition to identifying a need for better
supervision, they also believed that the implementation of performance
standards, team and image building, awards for exemplary work, and
certification of individual screeners would improve screener performance.

18Statement of the Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation, before the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, May 22, 2003.

  Little Information Exists to Measure Screeners' Performance in Detecting
  Threat Objects

Currently, the results of TSA's OIAPR's operational, or covert, testing is
the only indication of screener performance in detecting threat objects.
However, TSA does not view the results of OIAPR's covert testing as a
measure of screener performance, but rather as a "snapshot" of a
screener's ability to detect threat objects at a particular point in time.
Although OAIPR conducts fewer covert tests of passenger screeners than
previously conducted by the FAA, TSA considers its tests more rigorous
than FAA's tests because they more closely approximate techniques
terrorists might use. In addition to conducting operational testing, TSA
plans to fully activate the Threat Image Projection system and implement a
screener certification program in October 2003 to collect additional
information on screener performance. TSA also developed a Performance
Management Information System to collect and maintain information on the
performance of its passenger and baggage screening operations. However,
PMIS contains little data on screener performance in detecting threat
objects. TSA officials said that they plan to expand PMIS to collect some
performance information, but did not identify a timeframe for when the
data will be collected.

                              Operational Testing

TSA defines an operational screening test as any covert test of a
screener, conducted by TSA, on any screener function to assess the
screener's threat item detection ability and/or adherence to TSA-approved
procedures. When a screener fails a test, he or she is required to receive
immediate remedial training, and is prohibited from performing the
function related to the failed test until he or she satisfactory completes
the training. Currently, OIAPR's covert testing is the only source of
operational testing conducted of passenger screeners. These tests are
designed to identify systematic problems affecting the performance of
screeners in the areas of training, policy, and equipment. TSA does not
view the results of OIAPR's covert testing as a measure of screener
performance, but rather a "snapshot" of a screener's ability to detect
threat objects at a particular point in time and as an indicator of
systemwide screener performance. OIAPR testing to date has shown
weaknesses in screeners' ability to detect threat objects. Testing
conducted by the DOT's OIG, the Department of Homeland Security's OIG, and
GAO have also identified screener performance weaknesses.

Prior to the creation of TSA, FAA conducted thousands of covert tests
annually of passenger screeners. Most of these tests were compliance tests
in which FAA agents attempted to get nine test objects, such as guns and
grenades, past screeners conducting x-ray, metal detector, and physical
searches at airport checkpoints. The DOT OIG described these tests as

unlike the techniques that terrorists would employ.19 In 1997, FAA
incorporated simulated improvised explosive devices into its compliance
testing and performed, on average, more than 2,000 of these test each
year. In addition to compliance tests, FAA's special headquarters based
testing unit, often called the Red Team, conducted more realistic tests
using harder to detect threat objects by agents not known to screeners. 20

TSA's OIAPR has conducted fewer covert tests than conducted by FAA, but
considers its testing methods more rigorous than either of FAA's
compliance or Red Team tests because they more closely approximate
techniques terrorists might use. OIAPR officials further said that their
tests are intentionally designed to have a high probability of failure in
an effort to identify vulnerabilities and areas needing improvement.
Additionally, unlike testing conducted under FAA, OIAPR staff that perform
the tests reported that they provide immediate feedback to screeners,
their managers, and the FSDs to explain how they beat the system and
provide instant remedial training. We plan to review OIAPR's operational
testing in more detail during the remainder of our evaluation.

Based on an anticipated increase in staff from about 100 in fiscal year
2003 to 200 in fiscal year 2004, OIAPR plans to conduct twice as many
covert tests next year. In addition, TSA recently established 5 mission
support centers located throughout the country, which according to TSA,
will be staffed with OIAPR personnel available to conduct additional
covert tests.21 These centers will also be staffed with mobile testing
teams that will work with FSDs in their region to conduct screener
training using some of the test objects OIAPR uses in its covert tests.

19At the May 22, 2003, hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, DOT's IG, described FAA's standard
protocols for testing how well screeners performed when using uncluttered
carry-on bags with a firearm or simulated bomb inside. The IG said that it
would be difficult for a screener to miss a test object when undergoing
such a covert test.

20Aviation Security: Screeners Continue to Have Serious Problems Detecting
Dangerous Objects, GAO/RCED-00-159 (Washington, D.C.: June 2000). The
tests performed by FAA's Red Team, a special headquarters based unit, were
considered their most realistic tests because they used weapons and
improvise devices, a wider variety of bags with more clutter in them, and
headquarters-based agents who were not likely to be recognized by the
screeners.

21The mission support centers are located in Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit,
Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

    Threat Image Projection (TIP) System

In late 1999, to help screeners remain alert, train them to become more
adept at detecting harder to spot threat objects, and continuously measure
screener performance, FAA began deploying TIP. TIP places images of threat
objects on x-ray screens during actual operations and records whether
screeners identify the threat object.22 By frequently exposing screeners
to a variety of images of dangerous objects on the x-ray screens, the
system provides continuous OJT and allows for immediate supervisory
feedback, on-the-spot training, and remedial training.

According to TSA officials, TIP was shut down immediately following the
September 11th terrorist attacks due to concerns that it would result in
screening delays and panic, as screeners might think that they were
actually viewing a threat object. TSA officials recognize that TIP is a
key tool in maintaining and enhancing screener performance, and said that
they had begun reactivating TIP with significantly more images than FAA
had in place. TSA officials said that TIP had not been reactivated sooner
due to a lack of automated data collection via cellular modems; competing
priorities; a lack of training; and a lack of resources needed to deploy
TIP activation teams.

    Annual Screener Certification

ATSA requires that each passenger screener receive an annual proficiency
review to ensure he or she continues to meet all qualifications and
standards required to perform the screening function. Although TSA has not
yet implemented this requirement, it plans to develop an annual screener
certification program comprised of three components, including (1) image
recognition test; (2) knowledge of standard operating procedures (SOPs);
and (3) practical demonstration of skills, to be administered by a
contractor. TSA has not yet determined the level of performance that
screeners must achieve to be certified, but officials said that they plan
to require performance at a high, but reasonable level. Officials also
said that they plan to remediate and retest screeners who fail

22TIP is designed to test screeners' detection capabilities by projecting
threat images, including guns and explosives, into bags as they are
screened, or projecting images of bags containing threat objects onto the
x-ray screen as live baggage is screened. Screeners are responsible for
positively identifying the threat image and calling for the bag to be
searched. Once prompted, TIP identifies to the screener whether the threat
is real and then records the screener's performance in a database that FAA
could access to analyze performance trends. TIP exposes screeners to
threat images on a routine basis to enable them to become more adept at
recognizing threat objects. The system records the screeners' responses to
the projected images and provides a measure of their performance while
assisting in keeping them alert.

any portion of the test, but have not yet determined the number of times a
screener may retake the test before termination. Certification is
scheduled to begin in October 2003 and to be completed at all 442 airports
by January 2004, in the order in which the airports began federal
screening operations. TSA officials recently reported that they awarded a
contract to conduct the practical demonstration component of the test;
however, TSA has not developed a schedule for when the program will be
fielded to the airports. We plan to review TSA's annual screener
certification program during the remainder of our evaluation.

    Performance Management Information System

TSA's Performance Management Information System-PMIS-for passenger and
baggage screening operations contains little data on screener performance
in detecting threat objects. PMIS collects information on workload,
staffing, and equipment and is used to identify some performance and
policy issues, such as the level of absenteeism, average time for
equipment repairs, and status of TSA's efforts to meets goals for 100
percent baggage screening.23 (See app. I for examples of information
collected and contained in PMIS.) Additionally, TSA uses PMIS data to
identify needed changes to SOPs.24 Officials further reported that PMIS
has the ability to generate reports that enable TSA to track its progress
toward meeting its performance goals as well as to generate reports by
region, FSD, airport, and/or individual screening checkpoint. PMIS has
been deployed to all airports with federal screeners. FSDs are responsible
for designating a staff person to enter performance data into PMIS on a
daily basis.

TSA officials reported that they are planning to integrate performance
information from various systems into PMIS to assist the agency in making
strategic decisions. TSA also recently reported that it is developing a
screener performance index, which is supposed to include information such
as the results of TIP tests, training tests, and certification tests. We
plan to review these plans in more detail during the remainder of our
evaluation.

23TSA officials said that PMIS also contains other metrics, including
human resources, sizing, checkpoint, feedback, and incidents.

24For example, using PMIS data, TSA determined that passengers were
unintentionally leaving money at the screening checkpoints when they were
divesting themselves of all objects that could possibly cause the
walkthrough metal detectors to alarm. In response to this finding, TSA
established a protocol instructing screeners on how to address this issue.

    Screener Performance Improvement Study

TSA is taking steps to improve screener performance. In July 2003, TSA
completed a Screener Performance Improvement Study, which was designed to
identify root causes for gaps between current screener performance and
TSA's desired performance-defined as 100 percent interception of
prohibited items coming through the passenger screening checkpoints. As
part of its study, TSA identified four significant screener performance
deficiencies. TSA concluded that four key factors contributed to the
identified deficiencies: (1) lack of skills, knowledge, or information;
(2) low motivation; (3) ineffective work environment; and (4) incorrect or
missing incentives. To address the screener performance deficiencies
identified in the study, TSA developed several key solutions, including
the need to establish adequate training facilities at airports; staff
airports adequately to allow time for training; reconfigure checkpoints to
eliminate distractions; implement TIP at all airports; and enhance
supervisory skills. According to TSA officials, the appropriate TSA
components are currently developing action plans for each of the
deficiencies identified in the Performance Improvement Study. The plans
are to include action steps, timelines, required resources, and
anticipated outcomes. We plan to review these plans during the remainder
of our evaluation.

  An Assessment of the Contract Screening Pilot Program Has Not Yet Begun

TSA has implemented a pilot program using contract screeners at 5
airports, but has not determined how to evaluate and measure the
performance of the pilot program airports. The purpose of the 2-year pilot
program is to determine the feasibility of using private screening
companies rather than federal screeners. Initially, TSA required private
screening companies to adhere to all of the procedures and protocols used
for federal screeners. However, TSA recently provided the pilot
contractors with some flexibility, such as allowing them to determine and
maintain their own staffing levels and make independent hiring decisions.
While TSA has not yet determined how to evaluate and measure the
performance of the pilot program airports, it plans to award a contract by
October 1, 2003, to compare the performance of pilot screeners with
federal screeners and determine the reasons for any differences. TSA
officials said that the Office of Management and Budget requested that
they include in their evaluation ways to allow more innovation by contract
screening companies.

Although ATSA allows airports to apply to opt-out of using federal
screeners beginning in November 2004, TSA has not begun to plan for the
possible transition of airports from a federal system to a private
screening company. Airports Council International officials said that
numerous

  TSA Continuing to Work to Identify Appropriate Staffing Levels at the Nation's
  Airports

airports have contacted them expressing an interest in obtaining more
information to assist in their decision regarding opting-out. Six of the
10 airport operators we interviewed said that they had not made any
decisions regarding opting-out, and all 10 said they had not received any
information from TSA regarding the option.25 However, the airport
operators said that they would like information to assist them in deciding
whether to opt-out, such as determining who bears responsibility for
funding the screening contract; airport liability in the event of an
incident linked to a screener failure; how well the current pilot program
airports are performing; performance standards to which contract screeners
will be held; and TSA's role in overseeing contracted screening.

Initially, TSA headquarters determined screener-staffing levels for all
airports without actively seeking input from FSDs. Eight of the 12 FSDs we
interviewed said that they had limited authority to respond to airport
specific staffing needs, such as reacting to fluctuations in daily and/or
seasonal passenger flow. However, TSA headquarters officials said that
during the second stage of their workforce reduction process, they
solicited input from FSDs, airport officials, and air carriers. TSA
headquarters officials acknowledged that their initial staffing efforts
created imbalances in the screener workforce and have taken steps to
correct identified imbalances, such as such as authorizing the hiring of
part-time screeners at over 200 airports-the first of which began working
on September 15, 2003.

TSA determined the current screener staffing levels using a computer-based
modeling process that took into account the number of screening
checkpoints and lanes at an airport; originating passengers; the number of
airport workers requiring screening; projected air carrier service
increases and decreases during calendar year 2003; and hours needed to
accommodate screener training, leave, and breaks.26 TSA recently hired an

25Three of the remaining four airport operators we interviewed said they
were not currently considering opting out of using federal screeners. At
the pilot program airport we visited, the airport operator said that the
airport plans to continue using contract screeners.

26TSA's screener workforce totaled 55,600 on March 31, 2003. Due primarily
to budget constraints, the agency was directed to cut 3,000 positions to
result in a screener workforce of 52,600 on June 1, 2003. An additional
3,000 positions were cut for a workforce of 49,600 full-time equivalents
on September 30, 2003, the end of the fiscal year. TSA officials predicted
that, based on the fiscal year 2004 budget, the screener staffing level
will be down to 45,000 full-time equivalents by the end of fiscal year
2004.

outside consultant to conduct a study of screener staffing levels at
various airports. TSA officials stated that they will continue to review
the staffing allocation provided through the modeling efforts to assess
air carrier and airport growth patterns, and adjustments will be made as
appropriate. We plan to review TSA's efforts to determine appropriate
staffing levels for passenger screeners during the remainder of our
evaluation.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days after
its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security and interested congressional
committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, or wish to discuss it
further,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Jack Schulze, Assistant Director,
at
(202) 512-4390. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Cathleen A. Berrick
Acting Director, Homeland Security

and Justice Issues

Appendix I: Examples of Information Maintained in TSA's Performance Management
Information System

Category of information collected Examples of information collecteda

Checkpoint

                           Number of prohibited items

b

Number of weapons surrendered at sweep screening

Number of cleared Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) alarms Percent of absenteeism

Incidents

Number of incidents

Number of arrests

Number of evacuations

                        Number of disruptive passengers

Feedback

Customer complaints

Discourteous treatment

Nonstandard screening

                         Lost, stolen, or damaged items

                        Human Resources-Employee Census

                       Total active authorized screeners

Number of Screeners on light duty

Number of Screening managers

FSD staff

Number of screeners trained on baggage only/passenger only/cross-trained

Screener retention

TSA-wide

Federalization progress

Number of airports complete

Machines not in use

Percent of airports using the CAPPS II system

Average wait time at passenger screening checkpoints for federalized
airports

Sizing

Number of gates in use

Number of checkpoints

Number of lanes

Number of ETS, x-ray machines, explosive detection systems (EDS) machines

Number of enplanements

Appendix I: Examples of Information Maintained in TSA's Performance
Management Information System

  Category of information collected Examples of information collecteda Baggage
                                     status

                                EDS/ETS shortage

                               EDS/ETD inoperable

Training shortage

Staffing shortage

Staff absent

                                Baggage metrics

                           Explosive materials Drugs

Number of bags opened

                          Number of screeners on duty

Attainment

Individual airport measures to achieve change in threat level by date and
time

Source: TSA.

aFor each of the data elements for which data are reported, the
Performance Management Information System also contains several subsets of
information. For example, the number of prohibited items includes
information on the number of weapons (by category of weapon, such as
deadly/dangerous weapon) surrendered at the checkpoint, at a gate, at a
secondary screening point, etc.

bTSA officials described sweep screening as a method of screening in which
screeners randomly stop passengers in the airport concourse for additional
screening.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

  Staff Acknowledgments

(440197)

Cathy A. Berrick (202) 512-8777 Jack Schulze (202) 512-4390

In addition to those named above, David Alexander, Lisa Brown, Christopher
Jones, Stuart Kaufmann, Thomas Lombardi, Jan Montgomery, Edward
Stephenson, Maria Strudwick, and Susan Zimmerman were key contributors to
this report.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***