    Aviation Security: TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for
    Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be
    Systematically Reassessed (28-FEB-07, GAO-07-299).

    Over 600 million people travel by air each year in the United
    States, and the screening of airline passengers and their
    carry-on and checked baggage is vital to securing our
    transportation security system. The Aviation and Transportation
    Security Act, enacted in November 2001, established the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and significantly
    changed how passenger and checked baggage screening is conducted
    in the United States. This act removed screening responsibility
    from air carriers and the contractors who conducted screening for
    them, and placed this responsibility with TSA. As a result, TSA
    hired and deployed about 55,000 federal passenger and baggage
    Transportation Security Officers (TSO)--formerly known as
    screeners--to more than 400 airports nationwide based largely on
    the number of screeners that the air carrier contractors had
    employed. Since August 2002, however, TSA has been statutorily
    prohibited from exceeding 45,000 full-time equivalent positions
    available for screening. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
    Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in December 2004, required TSA to
    develop and submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
    and Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure, standards for determining the
    aviation security staffing for all airports at which TSA provides
    or oversees screening services by March 2005. These standards are
    to provide the necessary levels of aviation security and ensure
    that the average aviation security related delay experienced by
    passengers is minimized. TSA submitted these standards, which
    form the basis of TSA's Staffing Allocation Model on June 22,
    2005. The purpose of this optimization model, as identified by
    TSA, is to estimate the most efficient balance of TSOs needed to
    ensure security and minimize wait times. Models, in general, are
    expected to approximate the real world. These approximations must
    be validated to assure model users that their predictions are
    credible within the bounds of specific situations, environments,
    and circumstances. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
    Prevention Act also mandated that we conduct an analysis of TSA's
    staffing standards. In particular, the congressional committees
    to which TSA submitted the staffing standards were interested in
    how TSA is using the Staffing Allocation Model to identify the
    number of TSOs needed across the more than 400 commercial
    airports and how the model ensures that TSA has the right number
    of TSOs at the right checkpoints at the right times. This report
    addresses the following questions: (1) How does TSA ensure that
    its Staffing Allocation Model provides a sufficient number of
    TSOs to perform passenger and checked baggage screening at each
    airport and what challenges has it faced while implementing the
    model? (2) How does TSA deploy its TSO allocation and what
    factors affect the model's effectiveness in helping TSA
    accomplish this deployment?
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-299
        ACCNO:   A66360
      TITLE:     Aviation Security: TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Is
    Useful for Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions
    Should Be Systematically Reassessed
         DATE:   02/28/2007
      SUBJECT:   Airline personnel
    	     Airport security
    	     Airports
    	     Baggage
    	     Checked baggage screening
    	     Commercial aviation
    	     Human capital management
    	     Monitoring
    	     Passenger screening
    	     Passengers
    	     Staff utilization
    	     Standards

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-299

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background

              * [3]Our Nation's Commercial Airports
              * [4]Performance of Screening Functions at Commercial Airports
              * [5]History of TSO Staffing Levels and Staffing Models
              * [6]TSA's Use of the National Screening Force, Reserve TSO Full-

         * [7]TSA Relies on the Assumptions in Its Staffing Allocation Mod

              * [8]TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Seeks to Determine the Optim
              * [9]TSA Has Four Mechanisms in Place to Monitor the Sufficiency
              * [10]Some Key Assumptions Used in the Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing A

         * [11]TSA's FSDs Are Responsible for Deploying TSO Allocations at

              * [12]FSDs Are Responsible for Managing to Their TSO Staffing Allo
              * [13]FSDs Cited Challenges in Deploying Their TSO Workforce to Pe
              * [14]TSA Reported Several Efforts Underway to Help Address Challe

         * [15]Conclusions
         * [16]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [17]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [18]Objectives
         * [19]Scope and Methodology

              * [20]Objective One: Use of the Staffing Allocation Model to Provi
              * [21]Objective Two: TSA's Deployment of Its TSO Allocation at Ind

         * [22]Data Reliability
         * [23]TSA's Development of Its Staffing Allocation Model
         * [24]Staffing Allocation Model Components

              * [25]GRA Flight Data
              * [26]Regal Software
              * [27]Sabre Software

         * [28]TSA's Use of the Staffing Allocation Model
         * [29]GAO Contact
         * [30]Acknowledgments
         * [31]GAO's Mission
         * [32]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [33]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [34]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [35]Congressional Relations
         * [36]Public Affairs
         * [37]insert.pdf

              * [38]Results in Brief
              * [39]Background

                   * [40]Our Nation's Commercial Airports
                   * [41]Performance of Screening Functions at Commercial
                     Airports
                   * [42]History of TSO Staffing Levels and Staffing Models
                   * [43]TSA's Use of the National Screening Force, Reserve TSO
                     Full-

              * [44]TSA Relies on the Assumptions in Its Staffing Allocation Mod

                   * [45]TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Seeks to Determine the
                     Optim
                   * [46]TSA Has Four Mechanisms in Place to Monitor the
                     Sufficiency
                   * [47]Some Key Assumptions Used in the Fiscal Year 2006
                     Staffing A

              * [48]TSA's FSDs Are Responsible for Deploying TSO Allocations at

                   * [49]FSDs Are Responsible for Managing to Their TSO Staffing
                     Allo
                   * [50]FSDs Cited Challenges in Deploying Their TSO Workforce
                     to Pe
                   * [51]TSA Reported Several Efforts Underway to Help Address
                     Challe

              * [52]Conclusions
              * [53]Recommendations for Executive Action
              * [54]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
              * [55]Objectives
              * [56]Scope and Methodology

                   * [57]Objective One: Use of the Staffing Allocation Model to
                     Provi
                   * [58]Objective Two: TSA's Deployment of Its TSO Allocation at
                     Ind

              * [59]Data Reliability
              * [60]TSA's Development of Its Staffing Allocation Model
              * [61]Staffing Allocation Model Components

                   * [62]GRA Flight Data
                   * [63]Regal Software
                   * [64]Sabre Software

              * [65]TSA's Use of the Staffing Allocation Model
              * [66]GAO Contact
              * [67]Acknowledgments
              * [68]GAO's Mission
              * [69]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

                   * [70]Order by Mail or Phone

              * [71]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
              * [72]Congressional Relations
              * [73]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Committees

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    February 2007

    AVIATION SECURITY

    TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for Allocating Staff among
    Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed

    GAO-07-299

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 5
    Background 9
    TSA Relies on the Assumptions in Its Staffing Allocation Model, along with
    Mechanisms for Monitoring Them, to Help Ensure Sufficient TSO Staffing
    Levels, but Some Key Assumptions Do Not Reflect Operating Conditions 22
    TSA's FSDs Are Responsible for Deploying TSO Allocations at their
    Airports, but Face Workforce and Other Challenges to Effective Deployment
    42
    Conclusions 58
    Recommendations for Executive Action 59
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59
    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 62
    Objectives 62
    Scope and Methodology 62
    Data Reliability 68
    Appendix II Development and Description of TSA's Staffing Allocation Model
    69
    TSA's Development of Its Staffing Allocation Model 69
    Staffing Allocation Model Components 70
    TSA's Use of the Staffing Allocation Model 76
    Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 78
    Table 2: Average Peak Wait Times in Minutes, by Airport Category, Fiscal
    Years 2004-2006 27
    Table 3: Summary of Changes to the Staffing Allocation Model Implemented
    in Fiscal Year 2007 32
    Table 4: National Human Resource Initiatives by TSA for Its TSO Workforce
    56
    Table 5: Airports Visited during Design Phase 63
    Table 6: Airports Visited after the Design Phase 64
    Table 7: Staffing Allocation Model Assumptions for Fiscal Year 2007 74

    Figures

    Figure 1: Commercial Airports by Airport Security Category, as of April
    2006 10
    Figure 2: Passenger Checkpoint Screening Operation 12
    Figure 3: Checked Baggage Screening Operation 14
    Figure 4: TSA's Use of the Staffing Allocation Model for Annual TSO
    Allocations and Scheduling of TSOs for Airports 17
    Figure 5: Total TSO Allocation, by Airport Category, for Fiscal Years 2004
    through 2007 20
    Figure 6: Percentage of Part-Time TSOs by Airport Category, Fiscal Years
    2004 through 2006 36
    Figure 7: Percent of TSOs Used for Operational Support Functions, along
    with Average Hours Spent by Them on These Functions, by Airport Category
    for a 2-Week Period--September 17, 2006, through September 30, 2006 39
    Figure 8: Airports' On-Board Status, by Airport Category, Compared to TSO
    Staffing Allocation, in Full-Time-Equivalent TSOs, as of September 30,
    2006 47
    Figure 9: Attrition Rates for Full-Time and Part-Time TSOs, Fiscal years
    2004 to 2006 49
    Figure 10: Average Rate of TSO Absenteeism per 100 TSOs, by Airport
    Category, for Fiscal Years 2004 - 2006 51
    Figure 11: TSA Workman's Compensation Claims for Calendar Years 2004 -
    2006, through June 2006 52
    Figure 12: TSO Overtime Hours as a Percentage of Total Hours Worked, by
    Airport Category, during Fiscal Years 2004 - 2006 53

    Abbreviations

    ADASP Aviation Direct Access Screening Program
    BAO Bomb Appraisal Officer
    BDO Behavior Detection Officer
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport
    EDS Explosive Detection System
    ETD Explosive Trace Detection
    ETP Explosives Trace Portal FSD Federal Security Director
    FTE full-time equivalent
    IND Indianapolis International Airport
    MCO Orlando International Airport
    N/A not available
    OSR on-screen resolution
    SNA John Wayne Airport
    SPOT Screening Passengers by Observation Technique
    TSA Transportation Security Administration
    TSO Transportation Security Officer

    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.

    Tables

    United States Government Accountability Office

    Washington, DC 20548

    February 28, 2007

    The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
    Chairman
    The Honorable Ted Stevens
    Co-Chairman
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    United States Senate

    The Honorable James L. Oberstar
    Chairman
    The Honorable John Mica
    Ranking Minority Member
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    House of Representatives

    Over 600 million people travel by air each year in the
    United States, and the screening of airline passengers and their carry-on
    and checked baggage is vital to securing our transportation security
    system. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, enacted in November
    2001, established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
    significantly changed how passenger and checked baggage screening is
    conducted in the United States.^1 This act removed screening
    responsibility from air carriers and the contractors who conducted
    screening for them, and placed this responsibility with TSA. As a result,
    TSA hired and deployed about 55,000 federal passenger and baggage
    Transportation Security Officers (TSO)--formerly known as screeners--to
    more than 400 airports nationwide based largely on the number of screeners
    that the air carrier contractors had employed. Since August 2002, however,
    TSA has been statutorily prohibited from exceeding 45,000 full-time
    equivalent positions available for screening.^2

    1 Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).

    TSA's mission is to protect the nation's transportation systems while also
    ensuring the free movement of people and commerce. To help accomplish its
    security mission, TSA has established standard operating procedures to
    ensure that every airline passenger and checked bag undergoes some level
    of scrutiny to help ensure that objects and devices that may threaten
    public safety are not taken onboard aircraft. Although, according to TSA
    officials, these security duties are the primary objective of its
    screening efforts, it also attempts to minimize the effect on the movement
    of people and commerce by seeking to keep wait times at airport
    checkpoints reasonable.

    TSA has identified its most important asset in accomplishing its mission
    as the TSO workforce. TSA deploys TSOs to screen passengers and checked
    baggage at the nation's more than 400 commercial airports. TSOs, for
    example, monitor passengers as they walk through metal detectors, examine
    carry-on items on X-ray machines, and conduct more thorough inspections of
    passengers selected for additional scrutiny at screening checkpoints. The
    rapid changes in procedures stemming from the alleged August 2006
    terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives onboard multiple commercial
    aircraft departing from the United Kingdom and bound for the United States
    highlights the challenge TSA faces in balancing security with customer
    service and the vital role TSOs play in ensuring the security of our
    commercial aviation system.

    The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in
    December 2004, required TSA to develop and submit to the Senate Committee
    on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, standards for determining
    the aviation security staffing for all airports at which TSA provides or
    oversees screening services by March 2005.^3 These standards are to
    provide the necessary levels of aviation security and ensure that the
    average aviation security related delay experienced by passengers is
    minimized. TSA submitted these standards, which form the basis of TSA's
    Staffing Allocation Model on June 22, 2005. The purpose of this
    optimization model,^4 as identified by TSA, is to estimate the most
    efficient balance of TSOs needed to ensure security and minimize wait
    times. Models, in general, are expected to approximate the real world.
    These approximations must be validated to assure model users that their
    predictions are credible within the bounds of specific situations,
    environments, and circumstances.

    ^2Beginning in August 2002 and continuing through fiscal year 2003,
    Congress prohibited TSA from recruiting or hiring personnel that would
    cause it to exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time-permanent
    positions. See  Pub. L. No. 107-206, 116 Stat. 820, 880 (2002); Pub. L.
    No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 386 (2003). Since fiscal year 2004, Congress has
    specifically prohibited TSA from recruiting or hiring personnel that would
    cause it to exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time equivalent
    screeners. See Pub L. No. 108-90, 117 Stat. 1137, 1142 (2003); Pub. L. No.
    108-334, 118 Stat. 1298, 1304 (2004); Pub. L. No. 109-90, 119 Stat. 2064,
    2070 (2005); and Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1335, 1363 (2006). One
    full-time equivalent equals 1 work year or 2,080 non-overtime hours.

    The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act also mandated that we
    conduct an analysis of TSA's staffing standards. In particular, the
    congressional committees to which TSA submitted the staffing standards
    were interested in how TSA is using the Staffing Allocation Model to
    identify the number of TSOs needed across the more than 400 commercial
    airports and how the model ensures that TSA has the right number of TSOs
    at the right checkpoints at the right times.

    This report addresses the following questions: (1) How does TSA ensure
    that its Staffing Allocation Model provides a sufficient number of TSOs to
    perform passenger and checked baggage screening at each airport and what
    challenges has it faced while implementing the model? (2) How does TSA
    deploy its TSO allocation and what factors affect the model's
    effectiveness in helping TSA accomplish this deployment?

    To address our objectives, we reviewed TSA's report to the specified
    congressional committees on its staffing standards and technical materials
    detailing the staffing allocation model's assumptions,^5 and analyzed
    relevant legislation. We analyzed screening performance and TSO workforce
    data, such as passenger wait times, TSO absenteeism rates, TSO attrition
    rates, TSO overtime usage, TSO injury rates, number of TSOs devoted to
    administrative duties, and the level of usage of part-time TSOs. We
    assessed the reliability of these data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and
    concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
    this review. We also interviewed officials from various TSA headquarters
    offices to ascertain the methodology used in developing the Staffing
    Allocation Model. We reviewed TSA's previous staffing model, examined
    methods used by TSA for allocating TSOs to the nation's airports, and
    reviewed TSA's approach to monitoring the performance of the Staffing
    Allocation Model and obtaining feedback from Federal Security
    Directors--the top ranking TSA authority responsible for security at each
    of the nation's commercial airports--on their staffing allocations. We
    visited 14 airports selected by nonprobability sampling during our review.
    ^6 We visited 6 of the 14 airports during the design phase of our review
    based on several factors including geographic location and airport
    category.^7 After completing the design phase of our study, we visited
    eight additional airports including two airports from each of categories
    X, I, II, and III. We selected the two airports in each category because
    they had a similar number of annual passenger boardings, yet had different
    TSO allocations as determined by the Staffing Allocation Model. We visited
    each pair of airports in order to determine why the model treated
    seemingly similar airports differently. At all 14 airports we visited, we
    met with Federal Security Directors (FSD) and their staffs to discuss
    their views on how well the airport's TSO staffing allocation takes into
    account the unique characteristics of the airport and the TSO workforce
    and to observe passenger and checked baggage screening operations. We also
    met with representatives from the airport governing authority and at least
    one of the larger airline operators, based on passenger enplanements,^8 to
    obtain their perspectives on TSA's implementation of the Staffing
    Allocation Model and other relevant workforce issues. Because we selected
    a nonprobability sample of airports to visit, the information we obtained
    from interviews in our visits to different airports cannot be generalized
    to all Federal Security Directors, airport managers, and air carriers. We
    also met with representatives from aviation industry associations to
    obtain their perspectives on relevant TSA workforce issues.

    ^3Pub. L. No. 108-458, S 4023, 118 Stat. 3638, 3723-24 (2004).

    ^4An optimization model is a decision-making tool that recommends an
    answer (the goal to be optimized) based on analyses of information
    (constraints and decision variables). It consists of three components: (1)
    the goal to be optimized, (2) constraints, and (3) decision variables. In
    the case of TSA's Staffing Allocation Model, the goal to be optimized is
    the minimum number of TSOs to perform the necessary security functions at
    each airport within the stated wait time goal of 10 minutes. The
    constraints include passenger and baggage volume, and arrival
    distributions. The decision variables include the configuration of each
    airport (concourses, lanes, screening equipment, etc), staffing
    requirements, etc. TSA officials can alter decision variables to allow the
    model's outcome to meet the goal. For example, more screening lanes can be
    opened to meet demand and faster screening equipment could be installed.
    Decision variables have bounds within which the model must operate; these
    include, for example, how many lanes currently exist that could be opened.

    ^5In the context of models, the term assumption means any value in the
    model that is based on a belief or decision rather than on actual data.
    The term assumption is generally used with models because the components
    of a model are assumed to realistically represent events that the model is
    trying to explain or predict.

    ^6Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations are
    selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using specific
    characteristics of the population as criteria. Results from nonprobability
    samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population because in a
    nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being studied have
    no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.

    ^7TSA classifies the commercial airports in the United States into one of
    five security risk categories (X, I, II, III, and IV). In general,
    category X airports have the largest number of passenger boardings, and
    category IV airports have the smallest. Categories X, I, II, and III
    airports account for more than 90 percent of the nation's air traffic.

    We conducted our work from January 2006 through January 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. More details about
    the scope and methodology of our work are presented in appendix I.

    Results in Brief

    TSA aims to ensure that its Staffing Allocation Model provides a
    sufficient number of TSOs to perform passenger and checked baggage
    screening by: (1) building assumptions into its allocation model that are
    designed to calculate the necessary levels of TSOs to ensure security and
    minimize wait times, and (2) employing multiple monitoring mechanisms
    (both headquarters and field driven) for the sufficiency of the model's
    outputs. However, TSA faces some challenges to effective implementation of
    the model, primarily in ensuring that the model's key assumptions reflect
    operating conditions across airports. The model determines the annual TSO
    allocation for each airport by first considering the workload demands
    unique to each airport based on an estimate of each airport's peak
    passenger volume. This input is then processed against certain TSA
    assumptions about screening passengers and checked baggage--including
    expected processing rates, required staffing for passenger lanes and
    baggage equipment based on standard operating procedures, and historical
    equipment alarm rates.^9 Among the model's key assumptions is that
    establishing TSO allocations at a level adequate to respond to screening
    demand on a representative week during each airports' busiest month should
    allow most passengers on most days to experience 10 minutes or less wait
    time and should provide enough surplus staffing on lower-volume days to
    sufficiently account for leave, training, and other nonscreening duties
    during less busy times.^10 Another key assumption is that the appropriate
    ratio of full-time to part-time TSO staff, expressed in full-time
    equivalents, is 80 percent to 20 percent; which, in TSA's view, will allow
    FSDs to schedule TSOs to respond to fluctuating passenger volumes by
    scheduling part-time TSOs to work only during peak periods--e.g., most
    business travelers fly in the early morning or late afternoon and are the
    biggest contributors to these peak volumes. To monitor the sufficiency of
    the model's allocation outputs, TSA has both field and headquarters-driven
    mechanisms in place. For example, TSA has established a process for FSDs
    to request revisions to the assumptions used for their individual
    airports. According to TSA officials, during the first 2 years of the
    implementation of the Staffing Allocation Model, TSA granted some, but not
    all, of FSDs' requests to modify the assumptions used for their individual
    airports. In addition, TSA plans to conduct an annual review of certain
    assumptions in the Staffing Allocation Model. Based on the review
    conducted in 2006, TSA made several changes to the assumptions in the
    staffing model for fiscal year 2007, including allowances for various
    forms of leave and training in addition to a variable part-time assumption
    for each airport. TSA headquarters officials responsible for the model
    stated that in deciding which assumptions to review in 2006--the first
    annual review of the model--they considered input they received from FSDs
    regarding operational conditions at their airports that may not be
    adequately reflected in the model, along with other data and events that
    may have a bearing on the validity of the assumptions. However, TSA does
    not have a mechanism, such as a documented plan, for selecting and
    prioritizing which assumptions to review each year and for assuring that
    all assumptions are periodically reviewed to help ensure that they are
    current with and reflect actual operating conditions. Without a plan for
    periodically validating all of the assumptions, TSA is at risk of
    assumptions becoming outdated, which could result in TSO allocations that
    do not reflect operating conditions. TSA officials responsible for the
    staffing model acknowledged that while they had a general idea of how they
    plan to approach future annual reviews of the model, a documented plan
    would help provide assurance that the assumptions are periodically
    reviewed and validated. Although at the airports we visited, FSDs reported
    that the model is a more accurate predictor of staffing needs than TSA's
    prior staffing model, which took into account fewer factors that affect
    screening operations, the FSDs and our own analysis identified some
    assumptions used in the fiscal year 2006 staffing model that did not
    reflect operating conditions. For example, many airports did not achieve a
    20 percent part-time TSO workforce in the first 2 years of the model's
    implementation. TSA has addressed this problem in fiscal year 2007 by
    implementing a variable part-time goal based on each airport's part-time
    to full-time TSO ratio. In addition, some FSDs we visited stated that
    demand assumptions (using a representative week of airports' busiest
    months) did not sufficiently provide enough time for leave, training, and
    other operational support (nonscreening) duties. TSA officials
    acknowledged that they had not performed analysis to determine the
    reliability of this assumption. Also, FSDs stated the model for fiscal
    year 2006 did not specifically account for time away from screening to
    perform operational support duties, such as payroll processing. Although
    TSA officials told us that they have included an allowance for operational
    support duties in the 2007 Staffing Allocation Model, TSA has not
    determined under what circumstances it is appropriate to use TSOs to
    perform operational support functions or provided FSDs with guidance on
    when TSOs can be used this way. Without establishing such guidance, FSDs
    may over rely on TSOs to perform operational support functions.
    Overreliance on TSO staff for operational support could undermine TSA's
    investment in their specialized screening skills, reduce their on-the-job
    training opportunities, and constrain flexibility in scheduling them for
    the most efficient use of available resources.

    ^8 Enplanements are the number of passengers who board a plane.

    ^9 Alarm rates refer to the number of persons or bags per hour/day that
    set off an alarm in the screening device and consequently require
    additional screening.

    ^10Screening demand refers to the volume of passenger and nonpassenger
    traffic expected to require screening at an airport's checkpoint(s) within
    a specified time period. Screening demand does not include domestic
    passengers who board connecting flights at airports since they have
    already been screened at their airport of origin. Therefore, with regard
    to passengers, screening demand only refers to those who are originating
    at each airport.

    TSA has vested its FSDs with responsibility for deploying and managing to
    their TSO allocation in light of local circumstances, including those that
    might affect scheduling and pose challenges to most efficiently deploying
    their resource allocations. Specifically, FSDs are responsible for
    ensuring that the right number of TSOs are deployed to the right screening
    areas at the right times to meet airport screening needs. These needs can
    vary widely throughout the day because some airports experience greater
    levels of air traffic at some times of the day as compared with other
    times. After receiving the annual staffing allocation from TSA
    headquarters, FSDs must prepare work schedules, which may include use of
    the Staffing Allocation Model's optional scheduling tool, to deploy TSO
    staff to meet screening demand. However, FSDs we interviewed identified
    several challenges they faced in deploying their TSO workforce. These
    challenges involve factors outside the model's determination of overall
    TSO staffing levels and affect FSDs' ability to effectively deploy their
    TSO staff regardless of their allocation. Specifically, FSDs cited
    difficulties in achieving a 20 percent part-time TSO workforce, which the
    model has identified as the optimal ratio for scheduling efficiency;
    recruiting and retaining sufficient TSOs (both full-time and part-time) to
    reach their full allocations as determined by the model; staffing
    checkpoints appropriately given that some TSOs are unavailable due to
    absenteeism and injuries; and managing competing demands on TSOs' time,
    particularly with regard to operational support functions sometimes
    performed by TSOs and TSO training requirements. FSDs also had to manage
    around physical infrastructure limitations at some airports, such as lack
    of room for additional lanes or baggage check areas despite demand levels
    that would justify such added capacity. TSA headquarters officials and
    FSDs we interviewed reported having several efforts underway to help
    address challenges they face in deploying the TSO workforce. For example,
    TSA headquarters has several nationwide efforts underway to address hiring
    and retention of TSO staff (including part-time), absenteeism, injuries,
    and competing demands on TSO time. TSA officials at individual airports we
    visited are also working to address these challenges. For example, 6 of
    the 14 FSDs we interviewed said they implemented local initiatives, such
    as injury prevention committees and safe lifting demonstrations to help
    reduce the number of on-the-job injuries. Given that many of TSA's
    workforce initiatives were only recently implemented or are in the
    planning stages, we could not assess the extent to which these initiatives
    achieved the intended results. TSA human capital officials told us that
    they plan to evaluate the effects of their workforce initiatives and use
    the results of the evaluations to make any needed changes to their
    approach.

    To assist TSA in its efforts to identify TSO staffing levels that
    reasonably reflect the operating conditions at individual airports and to
    help ensure that TSOs are effectively utilized, we are recommending that
    TSA (1) establish a formal, documented plan for reviewing all of the
    assumptions in the Staffing Allocation Model on a periodic basis to ensure
    that the assumptions result in TSO staffing allocations that accurately
    reflect operating conditions that may change over time; and (2) establish
    a policy for when TSOs can be used to provide operational support.

    We provided a draft copy of this report to DHS for review. DHS, in its
    written comments, concurred with our findings and recommendations, and
    stated that the findings and recommendations are constructive and useful.
    DHS described some actions TSA has initiated to implement these
    recommendations, including working to develop a policy that would define
    when TSOs might be used to provide operational support. The full text of
    DHS's comments, as well as additional comments from TSA regarding the
    agency's workforce management initiatives, is included in appendix III.

    Background

    Our Nation's Commercial Airports

    There are more than 400 airports in the United States at which TSA
    provides or oversees passenger and checked baggage screening. These
    airports, often referred to as the nation's "commercial" airports, each
    contain one or more passenger screening checkpoints, and each checkpoint
    is composed of one or more screening lanes.^11 In addition, airports have
    one or more baggage screening areas, either in airport lobbies or baggage
    makeup areas where baggage is sorted for loading onto aircraft. As of
    October 31, 2006, the nation's commercial airports contained a total of
    761 checkpoints and 2,002 screening lanes at which passengers are
    screened. These airports can vary dramatically, not just in terms of
    passenger and flight volume, but in other characteristics, including
    physical size and layout. Figure 1 identifies the number of commercial
    airports by airport security category, as of April 2006.

    ^11 According to TSA, the total number of commercial airports regulated
    for security in the United States varies depending on various factors such
    as the type and level of commercial operations that an aircraft operator
    conducts at that particular airport, the time of year or season where a
    particular airport is located, and the economic stability of that
    airport's region.

    Figure 1: Commercial Airports by Airport Security Category, as of April
    2006

    Federal Security Directors (FSD) are the ranking TSA authorities
    responsible for leading and coordinating TSA security activities at the
    nation's commercial airports. TSA had 122 FSD positions at commercial
    airports nationwide, as of October 2006. Although an FSD is responsible
    for security at every commercial airport, not every airport has an FSD
    dedicated solely to that airport. Most category X airports have an FSD
    responsible for that airport alone. Other smaller airports are arranged in
    a "hub and spoke" configuration, in which an FSD is located at or near a
    hub airport but also has responsibility over one or more spoke airports of
    the same or smaller size.

    Performance of Screening Functions at Commercial Airports

    Passenger screening is a process by which authorized personnel inspect
    individuals and property to deter and prevent the carriage of any
    unauthorized explosive, incendiary, weapon, or other dangerous item aboard
    an aircraft or into a sterile area.^12 Passenger screening personnel must
    inspect individuals for prohibited items at designated screening
    locations.^13 There are four screening functions at passenger screening
    checkpoints. As shown in figure 2, the four passenger screening functions
    are:

    ^12 TSOs conduct passenger and baggage screening at all but six commercial
    airports. These six airports have opted out of federal screening and,
    instead, utilize screeners employed by private screening companies under
    contract to TSA to perform these services.

               o X-ray screening of property,
               o walk-through metal detector screening of individuals,
               o hand-wand or pat-down screening of individuals, and
               o physical search of property and trace detection for explosives.

    Typically, passengers are only subjected to X-ray screening of their
    carry-on items and screening by the walk through metal detector.
    Passengers who set off the alarm on the X-ray machine or the walk through
    metal detector or who are designated as selectees--that is, passengers
    selected by a computer-assisted passenger prescreening system^14 or
    another TSA-approved process to receive additional screening--are screened
    by hand-wand or pat-down and have their carry-on items screened for
    explosives traces, or they are physically searched.

    ^13 Sterile areas are located within the terminal where passengers are
    provided access to boarding aircraft. Access to these areas is controlled
    by screening personnel at checkpoints where they conduct physical
    screening of individuals and their accessible property for weapons,
    explosives, and other prohibited items. Screeners must deny passage beyond
    the screening location (into the sterile area) to any individual or
    property that has not been screened or inspected in accordance with law,
    regulation, and passenger screening standard operating procedures.

    ^14 The computer-assisted passenger prescreening system is a system that,
    based on information obtained from airline reservation systems, identifies
    passengers that may pose a higher risk to aviation security. These
    higher-risk passengers and their baggage are subject to additional
    screening.

    Figure 2: Passenger Checkpoint Screening Operation

    Note: Bomb Appraisal Officers are available to respond to unresolved
    alarms at the checkpoint that involve possible explosive devices. The Bomb
    Appraisal Officer may contact appropriate law enforcement or Bomb Squad
    officials if review indicates possible or imminent danger, in which case
    the officer ensures that the security checkpoint is cleared. The officer
    approves reopening of security lane(s) if no threat is posed.

    aBehavior Detection Officers are TSOs specially trained to detect
    suspicious behavior in individuals approaching the checkpoint. Should the
    BDO observe such behavior, he or she may refer the individual for
    individual screening or to a law enforcement officer.

    bThe hand-wand or pat-down is conducted if a passenger is identified or
    randomly selected for additional screening because he or she met certain
    criteria or alarmed the walk-through metal detector.

    cManual or ETD searches of accessible property occur if the passenger is
    identified or randomly selected for additional screening or if the TSO
    identified a potential prohibited item on X-ray.

    Checked baggage screening is a process by which authorized security
    screening personnel inspect checked baggage to deter, detect, and prevent
    the carriage of any unauthorized explosive, incendiary, or weapon onboard
    an aircraft. As shown in figure 3, checked baggage screening is
    accomplished through the use of explosive detection systems^15 or
    explosive trace detection systems,^16 and through the use of alternative
    means, such as manual searches, canine teams, and positive passenger bag
    match,^17 when the explosive detection or explosive trace detection
    systems are unavailable.

    ^15 Explosive detection systems use probing radiation to examine objects
    inside baggage and identify the characteristic signatures of threat
    explosives. This equipment operates in an automated mode.

    ^16 Explosive trace detection works by detecting vapors and residues of
    explosives. Human operators collect samples by rubbing bags with swabs,
    which are chemically analyzed to identify any traces of explosive
    materials.

    ^17 Positive passenger bag match requires that passengers be on the same
    aircraft as their checked baggage. According to TSA, this procedure is
    rarely used.

    Figure 3: Checked Baggage Screening Operation

    History of TSO Staffing Levels and Staffing Models

    The Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandated that TSA assume
    responsibility for passenger and checked baggage screening at the nation's
    airports using federal employees within 1 year of enactment.^18 By
    November 2002, TSA had fully deployed a federal passenger and checked
    baggage TSO workforce of about 55,000 full-time equivalents to the
    nation's commercial airports. This level of TSOs needed to conduct
    passenger and checked baggage screening was identified by a consultant,
    relying largely on the number of private sector screeners that had been in
    place prior to TSA. Subsequently, TSA decided to develop a staffing model
    to more effectively determine the appropriate number of TSOs needed at the
    nation's airports. TSA developed a demand driven model--a model based on
    flight schedules, connecting flight data, passenger loads,^19 passenger
    arrival distribution curves,^20 and number of passenger bags along with
    throughput rates for processing the passengers and bags--in an effort to
    make screening operations more efficient.^21 This model identified a TSO
    staffing level of 49,600 full-time equivalents based, in part, on the need
    for 5.5 TSOs per passenger screening lane. The DHS Appropriations Act,
    2004, enacted in October 2003, however, imposed a 45,000
    full-time-equivalent cap specific to the number of TSOs.^22

    18 See Pub. L. No. 107-71, S 110(b)-(c), 115 Stat. at 614-16 (enacted on
    November 19, 2001). See also 49 U.S.C. S 44901(a).

    In May 2003, TSA set out to develop a tool to better define aviation
    security staffing requirements at airports nationwide by accounting for
    changes in screening technology, operating conditions, and airline
    operations. The result of this effort is the Staffing Allocation Model--an
    optimization model that seeks, within certain TSA constraints,^23 to
    estimate the most efficient balance of TSOs needed to ensure security and
    minimize wait times.

    As shown in figure 4, TSA uses the staffing allocation model to generate
    (1) an annual full-time-equivalent total for each airport, known as an
    "annual allocation run," and (2) TSO work schedules throughout the course
    of the year, known as a "production, or scheduling, run." To determine the
    annual full-time-equivalent total for each airport, FSDs must first
    provide input to the model on their airports' passenger and checked
    baggage screening configuration. FSDs also provide input to the model on
    their airports' busiest month for screening demand based on originating
    passenger load factors. This "peak month" determination forms the basis of
    one of the model's key operating parameters used to compute each airport's
    full-time-equivalent staffing allocation. Specifically, for determination
    of an airport's annual full-time equivalent level, the model assumes a
    screening demand based on the average demand day during the airport's peak
    month. This assumption is linked to TSA's 10-minute wait time goal for
    processing passengers and baggage through security. According to TSA
    officials, the use of the average peak demand day is intended to ensure
    that, on an annual basis, 85 percent or more of the total passengers
    screened in U.S. airports will not have to wait more than 10 minutes to be
    screened. Once the peak month is selected for each airport, TSA performs
    the annual allocation run on a representative week within the peak month.

    ^19According to TSA, historical data on the number of passengers on each
    flight are known as "load factors" or passenger loads. Using historic data
    on passenger load factors, TSA estimated the number of passengers to be
    screened at each airport.

    ^20According to TSA, the rate at which passengers arrive at security
    checkpoints in anticipation of specific flights, is known as "passenger
    arrival distribution curves." These distribution curves show, based on
    historical data, how many passengers will arrive for the flights at
    different intervals of time prior to the flight.

    ^21We were limited in the extent to which we could assess TSA's prior
    staffing models because the TSA personnel responsible for overseeing the
    development of the earlier model are no longer employed by TSA and limited
    documentation on the models was available.

    ^22According to TSA, private screeners do not count against the 45,000
    full-time-equivalent ceiling. TSA currently contracts private screening
    companies to perform passenger and checked baggage screening at six
    commercial airports as part of its Screening Partnership Program, which
    allows commercial airports to opt to use private screeners in lieu of
    TSOs. TSA provides private screening companies with their
    full-time-equivalent levels based on the levels identified by the staffing
    allocation model. See [74]GAO-06-166 .

    ^23Some of the constraints include the number of checkpoints and screening
    lanes at an airport, and the distribution of arriving and departing
    flights throughout the day.

    Figure 4: TSA's Use of the Staffing Allocation Model for Annual TSO
    Allocations and Scheduling of TSOs for Airports

    aUse of the model's scheduling component is optional, and some FSD offices
    create detailed work schedules using other methods.

    After receiving and reviewing the inputs and assumptions for each airport,
    TSA runs the Staffing Allocation Model to determine each airport's
    full-time equivalent level for the upcoming year.^24 During the run, the
    model takes each airport's configuration and peak month screening demand
    input, combines it with the assumptions regarding baggage and passenger
    processing, and uses these factors to simulate the flow of passengers and
    baggage through an airport's screening areas to provide work force
    requirements. Then it calculates the total number of TSOs required
    (expressed in full-time equivalents) for the year based on the results of
    running the model for the representative week of the peak month. This
    representative week FTE level is used to calculate the annual FTE estimate
    for the airport.

    After receiving their annual full-time-equivalent allocation, TSA staff at
    individual airports may periodically run the model throughout the year. As
    shown in figure 4, during these "scheduling" runs, FSD staff may use the
    model's optional scheduling tool to determine work schedules for TSO staff
    that will satisfy screening demand on a day-to-day basis.^25 Similar to
    the annual allocation runs, TSA also inputs various historic data into the
    model during the scheduling runs. This input includes originating
    passenger load factors, estimates of number of bags per passenger, and
    passenger arrival distribution curves.

    In order to formulate TSO work schedules, the model monitors the passenger
    arrival patterns and recommends opening and closing lanes at passenger
    checkpoints to accommodate the demand. The optional scheduling software
    recommends a mix of full-time and part-time TSOs to satisfy the workforce
    requirements based on projected screening demand.

    According to TSA officials responsible for the staffing allocation model,
    TSA first ran the Staffing Allocation Model in August 2004 for fiscal year
    2005. The model, which did not yet contain complete data on each airport,
    identified a TSO full-time-equivalent level of 47,865 across all airports.
    To reach the congressionally-mandated limit of 45,000 full-time-equivalent
    TSOs, TSA applied a 7 percent reduction to the staffing levels identified
    by the model across all airport categories. TSA officials stated that they
    subsequently questioned this approach given that smaller (category III and
    IV) airports have significantly fewer TSOs and, therefore, were more
    significantly impacted by the 7 percent reduction in full-time equivalent
    positions.

    ^24 TSA has established assumptions in the model that are largely uniform
    for all airports while recognizing that slight variances may exist due to
    differing conditions among airports.

    ^25 FSDs may choose to use the Staffing Allocation Model's optional
    scheduling tool or an alternative method to prepare work schedules for
    their TSOs. In some cases, FSDs and their staff may choose to use the
    scheduling tool as is, modify its output, or use a scheduling method
    completely independent of the scheduling tool.

    According to TSA officials, because the Staffing Allocation Model was not
    centrally hosted^26 and did not contain complete data, the model may have
    over-estimated the required FTEs for fiscal year 2005. TSA determined that
    in August 2005, the Staffing Allocation Model contained complete and
    accurate data on each airport and the agency used it to identify TSO FTE
    allocations for each airport, and the output reflecting the total number
    of FTEs required--42,303--required no adjustment to fall within the
    congressionally-mandated limit of 45,000 TSO FTEs. According to TSA
    officials, when TSA ran the model, it did so without imposing a limitation
    on the maximum number of full-time-equivalent TSOs, including either the
    45,000 congressional limit or any budgetary limits. TSA informed FSDs of
    their TSO full-time-equivalent allocations in October 2005. Figure 6 shows
    the total TSO allocation, by airport category, for fiscal year 2004--the
    year prior to implementation of the staffing allocation model--through
    fiscal year 2007.

    ^26According to TSA officials, "centrally hosted" refers to the fact that
    the Staffing Allocation Model was not maintained on a database server
    accessible by both headquarters and field TSA personnel. Instead, in
    fiscal year 2005, TSA personnel at each airport ran the model on
    standalone computers. Therefore, TSA headquarters' oversight of inputs to
    the model by field personnel was not as effective prior to the advent of
    central hosting in fiscal year 2006.

    Figure 5: Total TSO Allocation, by Airport Category, for Fiscal Years 2004
    through 2007

    Note: The allocations in this figure reflect federal TSOs only and do not
    include private screeners employed at the 6 airports across the nation
    utilizing these personnel.

    FSDs, air carrier representatives, and airport operators we interviewed at
    the 14 airports we visited stated that TSA's efforts to allocate a
    sufficient number of TSOs to screen passengers and checked baggage and
    minimize wait times have improved over the years. These officials stated
    that passenger and checked baggage screening has become more efficient as
    TSA has matured and gained a better understanding of the airport operating
    environment, and frequent travelers have become more familiar with the
    screening process.

    TSA's Use of the National Screening Force, Reserve TSO Full-Time Equivalents,
    and Private Screeners for Certain Screening Needs

    TSA sets aside TSO full-time equivalents for needs outside of those
    considered by the Staffing Allocation Model in the annual allocation run
    for all airports. In order to handle short-term extraordinary needs at
    airports, TSA has established the National Screening Force of 615 TSOs who
    can be sent to airports to augment local TSO staff during periods of
    unusually high passenger volume. In addition, certain airports may, during
    the course of the year, experience significant changes to their screening
    operations (e.g., arrival of a new airline, opening of a new terminal,
    etc.). For these airports, TSA established a reserve of 329 TSO full-time
    equivalents for fiscal year 2006 that can be used to augment the existing
    force. This allocation approach allowed TSA to stay within the 43,000
    full-time-equivalent TSO budgetary limit for fiscal year 2006--a staffing
    level that TSA's Assistant Secretary stated is sufficient to provide
    passenger and checked baggage screening.^27

    Lastly, TSA allows certain airports to hire private contract screeners in
    lieu of TSOs. Under the Screening Partnership Program,^28 six airports
    have applied to TSA and received approval to hire private contract
    screener forces as of fiscal year 2006. Despite the fact that these
    airports do not use federal screeners, TSA still used the Staffing
    Allocation Model to determine the full-time equivalent screening staff at
    each of these airports for fiscal year 2006. These staffing levels, as
    determined by the model, served as a limit on the number of private
    screeners that the private screening contractors could employ. According
    to TSA, the 1,702 total full-time equivalent staffing allocation at these
    airports does not count against TSA's nationwide ceiling of 45,000
    full-time equivalents for TSO staff.

    ^27Appropriations received by TSA in fiscal year 2006 were sufficient to
    employ up to 43,000 full-time equivalent TSOs.

    ^28The Aviation and Transportation Security Act established TSA and
    assigned TSA with the responsibility of building a federal workforce to
    conduct screening of airline passengers and their checked baggage. See 49
    U.S.C. SS 114(a), 44901(a). ATSA also required that TSA allow commercial
    airports to apply to TSA to transition from a federal to a private
    screener workforce. See S 44920. To support this effort, TSA created the
    Screening Partnership Program to allow all commercial airports an
    opportunity to apply to TSA for permission to use qualified private
    screening contractors and private screeners. There are currently 6
    airports participating in the Screening Partnership Program, including
    Jackson Hole, Kansas City International, Greater Rochester International,
    San Francisco International, Sioux Falls Regional, and Tupelo Regional.

    TSA Relies on the Assumptions in Its Staffing Allocation Model, along with
    Mechanisms for Monitoring Them, to Help Ensure Sufficient TSO Staffing Levels,
    but Some Key Assumptions Do Not Reflect Operating Conditions

    TSA aims to ensure that its Staffing Allocation Model provides a
    sufficient number of TSOs to perform passenger and checked baggage
    screening by: (1) building assumptions into its allocation model that are
    designed to calculate the necessary levels of TSOs to ensure security and
    minimize wait times, and (2) employing multiple monitoring mechanisms for
    the sufficiency of the model's outputs. TSA's staffing allocation model
    determined the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 TSO staffing level for each
    airport based on built-in assumptions designed to ensure the necessary
    levels of security and to minimize wait times--such as assumptions
    regarding processing of passengers and baggage through security
    checkpoints and information about each airport's baseline
    configuration--e.g., physical infrastructure. During the first 2 years of
    the Staffing Allocation Model's use, TSA established several mechanisms to
    monitor the sufficiency of the model's outputs and make adjustments in key
    model assumptions that do not fully reflect operating conditions for some
    airports. For example, TSA established a process for FSDs to request
    revisions to the assumptions used for their individual airports. In fiscal
    year 2006, TSA granted some, but not all, requests. TSA headquarters also
    started an assessment to evaluate selected Staffing Allocation Model
    assumptions, an assessment it expects to perform annually, varying the
    assumptions it examines each year. However, TSA does not have a mechanism
    for selecting and prioritizing which assumptions to review each year and
    for assuring that all assumptions are periodically reviewed. Additionally,
    FSDs and our own analysis identified concerns with the appropriateness of
    some of the assumptions for the fiscal year 2006 model. For example, some
    FSDs stated that TSA's method of calculating screening demand (the 85th
    percentile day) to also account for TSO absences from screening did not
    provide them with sufficient surplus staffing. In addition, the model
    assumed a ratio of 20 percent part time to 80 percent full time (expressed
    in full-time equivalents), even in airports that have consistently been
    unable to achieve a 20 percent part-time TSO workforce; and the model had
    no mechanism to account for use of TSOs to perform operation support
    functions.

    TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Seeks to Determine the Optimal TSO Staffing
    Levels for Each Airport, Relying on Assumptions that Are Designed to Help Ensure
    Necessary Levels of Security and to Minimize Passenger Wait Times

    TSA's Staffing Allocation Model determined the fiscal years 2005 and 2006
    TSO staffing level for each airport using several built-in assumptions
    regarding security and wait times, in addition to data that reflect each
    airports' baseline configuration--e.g., permanent infrastructure and type
    of screening equipment.

    The key built-in assumptions are adjustable and designed to help ensure
    the necessary levels of security while minimizing wait times and include:

               o The minimum number of TSOs needed to staff each passenger
               screening checkpoint or baggage screening area based on the
               standard operating procedures for screening passengers and checked
               baggage and throughput rates for passenger and checked baggage
               screening equipment (see app. II).

               o A 10-minute maximum wait time for processing passengers and
               checked baggage.^29

               o Originating passenger and baggage load factors by airport based
               on a representative week during each airport's peak month (the
               85th percentile assumption), which TSA expects will give FSDs some
               time during less busy periods to allow TSOs to obtain required
               training, perform operational support functions, and take annual
               or other forms of leave.^30

               o A desired ratio of 80 percent full-time to 20 percent part-time
               TSO staff, expressed as full time equivalents, at each category X,
               I, and II airport to allow for heavier staffing during busier
               periods (e.g., the hours when business travelers typically depart)
               and to minimize overstaffing during less busy periods, times
               during which part-time TSOs would not be scheduled to work.
               o Nonpassenger throughput rate of 4 percent.^31

               o Rates at which screening equipment have historically signaled
               the possibility of a threat object and the consequent need for
               additional screening.

    ^29 The wait time (e.g., 10, 20, or 30 minutes) set in the model will
    influence the number of lanes and baggage equipment required; and,
    therefore, the TSO staffing required to process 85 percent of the annual
    passengers in less than the wait time that is set.

    ^30 TSA determines this assumption by selecting the month with the highest
    average passenger demand day (calculated by dividing total monthly
    passenger loads, reported by airlines, by the number of days in the month)
    as the peak month. According to TSA, only about 7 percent of an airport's
    days during the year will have greater passenger demand than this average
    peak demand day. TSA's industrial engineers have determined that running
    the model with a level of demand based on a representative week during
    this peak month will provide enough TSA staff to process 85 percent of
    passengers through security checkpoints in 10 minutes or less annually.

    The Staffing Allocation Model used these assumptions, along with other
    inputs such as each airport's baseline configuration--e.g., the number and
    type of checkpoints, security lanes, baggage screening areas, and
    screening equipment at each airport--to determine TSO staffing allocations
    for the nation's commercial airports for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. TSA
    officials stated that the assumptions used in the staffing allocation
    model and the other inputs collectively determine the TSO
    full-time-equivalent allocation for each airport. For this reason,
    airports with similar screening demand but different checkpoint
    configurations and types of screening equipment may receive different
    allocations. For example, TSA officials identified two category I airports
    that have similar screening demand, yet one airport received almost 50
    percent more full-time equivalent TSOs in fiscal year 2006 due to the
    physical infrastructure differences at these airports. Specifically, one
    airport has one terminal building, with three concourses, which generally
    enables passengers to be efficiently routed through one checkpoint in that
    one terminal. In contrast, the other airport has two separate terminals
    that prevent passengers from being routed through common checkpoints. This
    airport's separate terminals make sharing TSOs among the various
    checkpoints more challenging, creating a need for additional TSOs, thus
    the larger TSO allocation. Additionally, we visited category X and I
    airports with similar passenger volumes and differing TSO
    full-time-equivalent allocations for fiscal year 2006. According to TSA,
    in the case of the category X airports, while the passenger volumes for
    the two airports were similar--17.4 and 16.5 million, respectively--the
    difference in the type of passengers and the type of baggage screening
    equipment resulted in one of these airports receiving 26 percent more
    full-time-equivalent TSOs. Table 1 provides a summary of the various
    factors that influenced full-time-equivalent TSO allocations for fiscal
    year 2006 at some of the airports we visited.

    ^31Examples of non-passengers going through security checkpoints include
    flight crews and other airline employees, vendors at the airport, and
    other airport personnel.

    Table 1: Examples of Differences in Screening Operations, at Selected
    Airports We Visited, That Resulted in Differing TSO Allocations

                  ints and less ease of movement among model recognizes, thus
                  requiring more
                     TSOs. . ments data are only a rough indicator of actual
                     screening demande airports to visit, enplanements data were
                     the b
                     m integrates explosive detection systems with an airport's
                     requiring less human intervention (and, correspondingly,
                     less TSrated into existing
                     sportation. Specifically, the Secretary of the tion
                     established a goal that passengers be ger screening
                     checkpoints in 10 minutes or
                     ered appropriate to meet the dual needs of aintaining
                     national mobility. TSA officials stated basing the Staffing
        8.2          Allocati
                     iv demand week of each airport's peak month, 85 percent of
                     passengers within 10 minutes. TSA passengers will still have
                     to wait longer than 1 at certain times due, at least in
                     part, to the fact airport's travel days (about 25-30 days)
                     during xceed the 85 percentile demand day.

    in line during off-peak periods an

    passengers are to give the cards to a TSO once they reach the front of the
    line and are directed to a lane for screening. The TSO is to record the
    time on the card. At the end of each d

    and enter the wait time data into the Performance Management Information
    System. ^35FSDs report to one of three Area Directors, based on their
    geographic regions, on administrative matters. The Area Directors oversee
    transportation security at airports andin other modes of transportation
    for the East Coast, Central, and Western regions, respectively.

    s

    have lower wait times. Smaller airports are more likely to have a numbeof
    passenger lanes and baggage screening areas that are more commensurate
    with their screening demand than some larger airports thhave higher
    screening demand. TSA has four mechanisms in place to monitor the
    sufficiency of the TSallocations. First, at individual airports, FSDs and
    the industrial engineers assigned to their airports are responsible for
    monitoring their passand checked baggage screening operations to ensure
    that the staffing allocation model's inputs are reliable.^36 A process
    currently exists to enable FSDs to request revisions to the assumptions
    used for their individual airports when they believe that a model
    assumption is unrealistic. As part of this process, FSDs are to submit
    empirical data to support requests to alter assumptions. Based on TSA's
    review of the data, TSA may send an "optimization team" to the airport in
    an effort to identifythe cause of the staffing problem.^37 Optimization
    teams are composed of experts in passenger and baggage screening
    operations and proceduresthe staffing allocation model, and TSO
    scheduling. These teams obserscreening operations and seek to maximize
    efficiencies by applying practices learned at other airports.

    scheduling practices, determine compliance with the standard operating
    procedures, validate the TSO staffing model at the airport, and make
    adjustments to model assumptions, if necessary. TSA officials statedthey
    are formalizing a process for systematically collecting information obest
    practices identified by optimization teams so that this informationbe
    disseminated across airports. TSA's solicitation of input from FSDs
    regarding changes that need to be made to the assumptions that guide their
    TSO allocations is consistent with our standards for internal cowhich call
    for management to ensure effective internal communicatiofor example, by
    establishing mechanisms for employees to recommend improvements in
    operations.^38During the first 2 years of the implementation of the
    Staffing Allocation Model, TSA granted some, but not all, of FSDs'
    requests to modify the assumptions used for their individual airports. TSA
    provided several examples of these requests and the final outcome. For
    example, an FSD requested a change to passenger screening throughput rates
    at s

    headquarters and reports to one of TSA's three Area Directors. These
    engineers are responsible for assisting and monitoring airports in their
    use of the Staffing Allocation

    Model. ^37According to TSA officials, an optimization team is not sent to
    an airport in response to every FSD request for a revision to an
    assumption for their airport. For example, if TSA determines that it is
    readily apparent from the request that a change is not needed, TSA would
    not send an optimization team to visit the airport.

    of carry-on items passengers tended to carry through this checkpoint.
    After reviewing the FSD's request and sending an optimization team to
    assess the validity of the request, TSA changed the model's assumption
    about the passenger throughput rate for this checkpoint from 200 to 165
    passengers per hour at these lanes. TSA officials told us that, in
    situations like this, the model will recommend opening more lanes and
    addingif deemed warranted, to offset a reduction in the number of
    passengers screened per hour. In another example, an FSD requested a
    change innon-passenger--flight crew and airport employees--throughput rate
    based on data collected at the checkpoint that showed a higher percenof
    nonpassenger throughput than the model assumes. TSA headquarofficials
    denied the request because the higher percentage of nonpassenger thro

    TSA headquarters officials told us that they di

    previous
                                                TS
            industrial engineers assigned to their
         at                          input from th   e

    similar circumstances arise at other airports. Officials stated that TSA
    isformalizing its process for revising assumptions based on
    airport-specific circumstances. In August 2006, TSA developed and
    distributed to FSDs a draft standard form to use when requesting
    deviations from the StaffinAllocation Model's standard assumptions. The
    form, finalized as of

    ^38Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
    Governmen.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999); (Washington, D.C.:
    Aug2001). GAO, GAO/AIMD-00-21Internal Control: Internal Control Management
    and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G

    reliability of

    As a third mechanism to monitor the sufficiency of the model's outputs,
    TSA headquarters officials stated that they continually monitor
    performance data reported by individual airports to identify any anomthat
    may require further investigation such as high wait times over anextended
    period of time, lower than expected throughput at passenger lanes, high
    overtime rates (in excess of 4 percent), and airports with onboard TSO
    staff consistently below their staffing allocation. In some cases,
    anomalies identified by TSA may result in an optimization team visit to an
    airport in an effort to determine their cause. For example, TSA
    headquarters officials stated that

    ti

    s

    causes of the problems the airport is having and suggest to the local FSD
    ways to increase efficiency in the passenger and baggage screening
    operations to overcome the problems. In some cases, the optimization team
    may conclude that a change to the Staffing Allocation Model's baseline
    assumptions for the airport is necessary. For example, the aimay have
    lower throughput rates at some of its passenger or baggagscreening areas
    than the Staffing Allocation Model assumes, due tdifferent types of
    screening equipment or the physical layout of the airporsecurity
    checkpoints. Finally, according to TSA officials, in September 2006, TSA
    completed itsfirst annual review of certain assumptions in the Staffing
    Allocation ModeThis review included an assessment of whether the
    assumptions under review are still realistic, including assumptions
    related to screening procedures, technology, screening throughput, and
    nonpassenger alarm rates; and whether adjustments to the model are needed
    to make the fulltime-equivalent allocation reflect actual operating
    conditions at airports. As a result, as shown in table 3, TSA has changed
    some assumptions aadded others to more realistically reflect actual
    operating conditions.^40 Forexample, TSA headquarters officials
    responsible for the model stated the fiscal year 2007 model will provide
    4.25 TSOs per passenger checkpoint screening lane rather than the 5.5 TSOs
    per lane provided in the fiscal y2006 model--a change TSA officials
    attributed to the model directly accounting for collateral duties
    performed by TSOs, TSO time paid but not worked,^41 and TSO training
    requirements.

    ^40According to TSA, as part of the process of reviewing the staffing
    allocation model assumptions, TSA headquarters officials responsible for
    th

    FSD staff responsible for understood the model and the changes implemented
    in fiscal year 2007. ^41 This time includes annual, sick, and military
    leave in addition to compensatory time ainjury time off.

    ing Allocation Model Implemented in Fiscal Year 2007 ar 2006 staffing
    allocation model Fiscal year 2007 staffing allocation model checkpoint
    staffing set at 5.5 for X, I, and II airports.  Security checkpoint
    staffing set at 4.25 for category X, I, and II airports.  hine staffing
    set at 3.  EDS machine staffing set at 2.  tly accounted for Each airport
    has a 14.5 percent annual FTE allowance for time paid not worked. tly
    accounted for Airports in categories X, I, and II have a 5
    percencollateral duties FTE credit. tly accounted for Each airport has a 2
    percent annual FTE allowance for training that cannot be completed during
    operational down times. percent of total FTEs for all category II
    airports. TSA has implemented a variable part-time goal based on each
    airport's individual part-time totime ratio. hine baggage processing rates
    ng on type of equipment and xternal screening methodology) set at r 180
    seconds). ETD baggage processing rates set at 55, 98, or 238 seconds. 0
    EDS machine screening rate set at CTX2500 set at 115 bags per hour.

    EDS screening rate set at 160 bags CTX5500 EDS screening rate set at 200
    baghour. CT80 machine added with processingbags per hour. Explosives Trace
    Portal (ETP) machine added with processing rate of 175 passengers per
    hour. 6 different baggage distributions. Number of baggage distributions
    reduced to 2. Added line item allocation for SPOT,^a BAO,^b andADASP^c
    security initiatives. Source: TSA. ^aTSA's Screening Passengers by
    Observation Technique program is designed to detect individuals who
    exhibit behavior that indicates they may be a threat to aviation and/or
    transportation security. ^bTSA's Bomb Appraisal Officer initiative
    designates TSOs to receive specialized training in thdetection of
    improvised explosive devices and apply this knowledge at security
    checkpoints. ^cTSA's Aviation Direct Access Screening Program involves
    TSOs performing security screeniexplosives, incendiaries, weapons, and
    other prohibited items or improper airport identification meThis security
    screening will occur at direct access points to include secured areas,
    sterile areas, or aircraft operating areas outside of TSA's security
    screening checkpoints. TSA officials responsible for the staffing
    allocation model stated thatdeciding which assumptions to review for the
    fiscal year 2007 model, theconsidered input they received from FSDs
    regarding operational conditions at their airports that may not be
    adequately reflected in model, along with other data

    such as a documented plan, for selecting and prioritizing which
    assumptions to review each year and for assuring that all
    assumptperiodically reviewed. Without a plan for periodically validating
    the assumptions, the agency is at risk of assumptions becoming outdated,
    which could result in TSO allocations that do not reflect actual operating
    conditions. Moreover, given the ongoing personnel changes in TSA, a
    documented plan would help provide future decision makers with information
    on which assumptions had historically been assessed andwhich ones TSA
    planned to assess in the future. ^42 TSA officials responsiblefor the
    staffing model acknowledged that while they had a general idea how they
    plan to approach fu

    periodically reviewed and validated, and are current with actual
    operatinconditions. FSDs we interviewed reported that the screening
    allocation model is a more accurate predictor of their overall staffing
    needs than previous models that took into account fewer factors affecting
    screening operations. However, these FSDs and our own analysis identified
    that some of the key assumptions used in the staffing allocation model,
    duthe first 2 years of its implementation, did not reflect actual
    operating conditions. Specifically, the FSDs identified five weaknesses in
    the model for fiscal year 2006. First, 11 of the 14 FSDs identified
    concerns related to TSA's basing its estimate of demand levels for the
    Staffing Allocation Model on a representative week of each airport's peak
    screening demand month toallow excess time for training, leave, and other
    factors not directly considered by the staffing allocation model.
    Regarding training, 9 of the 14 FSDs expressed concern that the model did
    not specifically account fothe training requirement of 3 hours per week
    averaged over a fiscal yquarter. Three of these FSDs said they faced
    challenges in meeting the minimum training requ

    ^42Since its inception in November 2001, TSA has had multiple Assistant
    Secretaries (originally titled Under Secretaries of Transportation for
    Security). In addition, between January 2005 and August 2006, TSA issued
    seven press releases regarding senior-level personnel changes within the
    agency.

    of the 14 FSDs stated that in their view the model did not adequately
    account for this leave. Two FSDs stated that the use of the peak demand
    month to account for training and leave, though sound in principle, is
    particularly difficult for smaller airports because they do not have
    asfluctuation between their peak period and their non-peak period, which
    leaves little cushion in the allocation to accommodate TSO absences
    fromscreening duties such as training and annual leave. TSA headquarters
    officials stated that TSA determined that using the 85th percentile day
    concept would more than account for training, leave, and other factors
    related to TSOs not being available for work because, according to TSA, on
    only about 7 percent of days do passenger volumes exceed it. Thus,
    according to TSA officials, the Staffing Allocation Moset at a high enough
    demand level to cover screening demand for most days during the year and
    allow for the extr

    d

    th

    lo

    fiscal year 2007, in the Staffing Allocation Model equivalents (14.5
    percent full-time-equivalent allowa

        sick, comp, injury, and military  eave.
        Additionally, TSA                 fficials have included an
        fiscal 2007 Staffing              odel (an additional 2 perce
        equivalent allo                   g that cannot be completed during
                                          ecifically intended this allowan
        each month on                     ised explosive devices--which TSA has
                                          mmercial aviation securi
        percent part-ti                   e, as measured by full-time-equivalehow
                                          that the part-time TSO full-time-
                                          visited,^43 as of July 2006, r
        approximately 1 to 38 percent,    ith an average of 8 percent. FSDs
        wthat the 2                       stated l for TSOs has been difficult to
                                          achieve fo
        most airports because of,         other things, economic conditions ime
        aleading to competition for       workers, remote airport locations
        coupled with a lack of mass
        tranhas not changed since fis
        TSOs, and the large number of     art-time TSOs who convert to f
        status w
        factors have made the hiring an   retention of part-time TSOs
                                          particularly a
                                          0 percent in the first 2 years of
                                          ation model (fiscal years 2005 ion's
                                          larger (category X, I, and II)
        airports.^44 For example, figu    also shows that in fiscal years 2005
                                          and
                                          rts had a TSO workforce comprised
                                          ivalents. TSA officials stated that the

    represent actual screening demand for that week. However, officials
    acknowledged that such an assessment could help verify that, for purposes
    of the model's annual allocation run, the resulting allocatiprovides TSO
    staffing levels adequate to allow for 85 percen

    passengers at the nation's commercial airports to wait 10 minutes or less
    at security ch

    TSA officials originally assumed that the 20 percent TSO part-time
    assumption provides the most efficient coverage for airports (especially

    those in categories X, I, and II) by enabling FSDs to have more
    flexibility 45

    6 shows that, on average, only smaller airports (categories III and IV)
    came close to or exceeded the 20 percent part-time TSO workforce goal
    during fiscal years 2004 through 2006.

    ^434445 The 14^th airport we visited, San Francisco, had private screeners
    instead of TSOs. This ratio of part-time to full-time is based on
    annualized full-time-equivalent dataAccording to TSA, an annualized number
    represents an estimate of the usage of FTEs over the fiscal year assuming
    that the usage in a given pay period remains constant over all future pay
    periods. TSA officials stated that they conducted sensitivity analysis
    around various mixes of full-time to part-time TSOs at category X airports
    and identified that no additional efficiency was gained at these airports
    with a full-time-equivalent level of part-time TSOs greaterabout 20
    percent. Figure 6: Percentage of Part-Time TSOs by Airport Category,
    Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006

    Note: This figure includes data on federal TSOs only and not on private
    screeners employed at the 6 airports across the nation utilizing these
    personnel. part-time goal based on each airport's historic part-time to
    full-time Tratio. Third, 5 of the 14 FSDs stated that the staffing model
    does not appear toconsider new passenger screening procedures that may
    require additionTSOs at the checkpoint. For example, one FSD stated that
    the model hyet to incorporate the additional TSOs that will be required by
    TSA's newScreening Passengers by Observation Techniques program currently
    being implemented at the nation's airports.^46 TSA headquarters officials
    acknowledged that changes to screening procedures could increase the
    number of TSOs needed at a checkpoint or, conversely, increase wait times
    at the checkpoint. Therefore, TSA has made changes to the staffing
    allocation model for fiscal year 2007 to include line item allocations for
    tnew Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques, Bomb Appraisal
    Officer, and Aviation Direct Access Scr

    part-time FTE level and others (most likely smaller airports) may opemore
    effectively with other levels of part-time TSO staff. As a result, for
    fiscal year 2007, TSA has modified this assumption to include a variable

    Fourth, two of the five FSDs with in-line checked baggage screening
    systems stated that in their view TSA overestimated the TSO labor savithat
    would be achieved as a result of deploying in-line baggage screesystems.
    TSA headquarters officials responsible for the staffing modestated that
    some adjustments had to be made to individual airports' TSOstaffing levels
    to adequately reflect the configuration of the airports' in-linsystems,
    which permit higher throughput rates. Specifically, som

    installed at a particular terminal or terminals. Additionally, TSA
    officials cited one example in which a category X airport received a
    reductTSOs in fiscal year 2005 to account for the in-line baggage
    screeninsystem at the airport. However, TSA officials responsible for the
    staffmodel later learned that the model had incorrectly assumed that
    thsystem was fully operational, when in fact it was still under
    constructioOfficials stated that the FSD at this airport was consequently
    allocated additional TSO positions. TSA officials stated that the model
    validation process currently underw

    importance of a mechanism to provide assurance that all
    assumptionperiodically undergo validation. Finally, FSDs identified that
    the model does not account for TSOs being used in operational support
    functions. Eleven of the 14 FSDs we interviewed stated that because they
    are not authorized to hire a sufficinumber of mission support staff, TSOs
    are being routinely used to perform certain operational support functions
    such as payroll processing, scheduling, distribution and maintenance of
    uniforms, data entry, and workman's compensation processing. At 13
    airports^47 we visited between January and August 2006, out of a total of
    4,710 TSOs on-board at those airports, TSA was using 242 TSOs (about 5
    percent) for operational support functions. FSDs and their staffs stated
    that these TSOs wspending varying amounts of time on operational support
    duties, some on a nearly full-time basis.^48 As shown in figure 7, nearly
    7 percent of Tnationwide performed operational support (on at least a
    part-time basis)during a specific 2-week pay period in fiscal 2006. This
    percentage was slightly higher for the smaller airport categories. Also,
    as shown in figu7, the TSOs performing operational support functions at
    the

    conversation with passengers and referring suspicious passengers to
    selectee screen

    possible hours--during the 2-week period. In addition, TSOs
    perforoperational support functions at Category X airports spent
    significantly more time on these duties (approximately 63 out of 80 hours)
    than TSOs ithe other airport categories.

    ^47We excluded one a

    private codo not include airports with private screeners. ^48According to
    a TSA management directive dated December 4, 2006, TSOs must perform
    screening duties at

    Figure 7: Percent of TSOs Used for Operational Support Functions, along
    with Average Hours

    administrative positions it needs and was using TSOs to perform
    administrative work due to a lack of ot

    w ^49Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Review
    of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions, OIG-06-65, September 2006.
    October 2, 2005, through January 21, 2006, TSOs performed operational
    suppor

    assigned to do this work. Moreover, the Inspector General reported that
    TSOs were working overtime to perform these duties. The Inspector General
    recommended that, among other actions, TSA conduct a workforce analysis of
    FSD administrative staff and develop a staffing model to determine the
    number of administrative employees needed at airports, and take into
    consideration the time and nature of adminiwork performed by TSOs when
    assessing its workforce requirements. InMay 2006, TSA headquarters
    officials told us that they were conductingsurvey of FSDs to identify the
    number of hours their staffs, including TSOs, spend each week on a variety
    of operational support functions. These officials stated that they will
    review the FSD responses to determinthe time it takes to perform each
    function and the level of staffing needed.

    based on the types of administrative functions performed at the airpoand
    the availability of funding. TSA headquarters officials stated that they
    have not made a decision on whether permanent operational support
    staffwould be provided in the form of additional TSOs or full-time
    administrative staff. In the interim, TSA contracted with three private
    companies in September 2006 to provide temporary operational support
    services to FSDs that request this assistance from TSA headquarters.
    According to TSA, these contractors supplement FSD administrative staff so
    that TSOs performing operational support functions can return to their
    primary screening duties. Additionally, in order to account for additional
    TSO time needed for operational support, TSA included a "collateral duties
    credit" in the Staffing Allocation Model for fiscal year 2007. This credit
    will increase each airport's fiscal year 2007 allocation identified by the
    staffing model5 percent at category X, I, and II airports. TSA officials
    stated that the agency is not providing this credit to category III and IV
    airports because the extended periods of low screening demand at these
    airports offsets the need for such an allowance.

    have less of a problem scheduling checkpoints during peak passenger volume
    if he did not have to use TSOs to provide operational support.
    Additionally, the use of TSOs to perform operational support functions

    may undermine TSA's investment in training them for screening
    functionsince the TSO is not performing the job for which they were
    traineMoreover, TSA has stated that TSO performance improves with
    experience. Consequently, TSOs who are not conducting passenger or checked
    baggage screening are not gaining the additional experienhelp enhance
    their performance. An FSD we interviewed at a category airport stated that
    having to use TSOs to perform operational support duties at his airport
    has created challenges in keeping these TSOs proficient in screening
    duties. However, TSA headquarters' officials that using TSOs to perform
    operational support functions does not adversely impact TSO performance
    because the agency has various methods in place to ensure that all TSOs,
    including those performing nonscreening duties, meet minimum security
    standards. For example, all TSOs have to meet the recurrent training
    requirement of 3 hours of training per week averaged over a calendar
    quarter to maintain proficiency and remain current on procedural changes
    and new threat items and aTSOs are subject to the various components of
    TSA's performance accountability and standards system.^50 Additionally,
    TSA officials stated that an April 2006 management directive requires TSOs
    who have not performed screening functions for 15 or more consecutive days
    to complete a return to duty trai

    component of the performance and accountability standards system: (1)
    quarterly observations of TSOs' ability to perform particular screening
    functions in the operating environment to ensure they are complying with

    procedures; and (3) an annual, multi-part knowledge and skills assessment
    (known as recertification testing).

    TSA has vested its FSDs with responsibility for managing their TSO
    allocations while considering local circumstances that can affect the
    staffing allocation model's effectiveness in deploying the T

    retention, but plans to do so during fiscal year 2007.

    FSDs are responsible for deploying and managing to their TSO allocain
    light of local circumstances, including those that might affect scheduling
    and pose challenges to most efficiently deploying their resource
    allocations. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the staffallocation
    model identifies the annual allocation of TSOs needed at each airport
    based on projected demand levels and other factors that make up sufficient
    number of TSOs are deployed, from available staff, to meet airport
    screening needs. TSA has provided FSDs with an optional tool they can use
    to facilitate the management of their TSO allocation. Specifically, the
    Staffing AllocatModel includes a scheduling component that uses the
    various inpuand assumptions of the model, including the number of
    checkpoints, laand checked baggage screening machines needed to respond to
    the passenger and checked baggage load and the minimum TSO staffing levels
    identified in the standard operating procedures for passenger and
    checkebaggage screening. This tool is then to produce daily workforce
    requirements and calculates a work schedule for each airport. The schedule
    identifies a recommended mix of full-time and part-time staffa total
    number of TSO FTEs needed to staff the airport on a given day, consistent
    with a goal of 10 minutes maximum wait time for processing passengers and
    baggage. In addition, there are several areas where TSA adjusts the
    scheduling tool to most accurately reflect actual conditions and needs.
    These areas include:  o Flight schedule changes.  o TSO training
    requirements (based on available times identified by tscheduling tool).  o
    Number of TSOs needed for operational support associated with operating
    the checkpoint and baggage screening areas.  o New passenger and checked
    baggage screening procedures that affect TSO utilization.

    Specifically, FSDs are responsible for scheduling TSOs to ensure that

    FSDs stated that because the scheduling tool does not contain this
    information, they must modify the input to the tool, or use an
    alternascheduling tool, to deploy their TSO workforce. For example, FSDs
    andtheir staffs stated that the scheduling tool does not contain the most
    current flight schedule data due to the reporting practices of various
    airlines. During our airport visits, TSA scheduling officers reported that
    the scheduling tool includes data from as much as 90 days in advance, but
    some airlines provide their fi

    to ensure adequate TSO availability. TSA officials said that in ordekeep
    their flight offerings competitive, airlines seek to protect their
    flightdata from public disclosure as long as possible. For this reason,
    TSA headquarters officials said they expect FSDs to work with airport
    operators and airline officials to obtain the most current data
    availablewhich to base their scheduling efforts and to make adjustments to
    the scheduling tool to ensure that their deployment of TSOs most
    effectively meets the screening demand. The nine FSDs we interviewed at
    category X and I airports reported thathe scheduling tool was useful as a
    starting point for developing their schedules. However, all six FSDs who
    said they used the scheduling tool regularly reported making adjustments
    to the schedule output to more accurately reflect their local conditions
    primarily because, accordithese FSDs, the scheduling tool does not
    automatically take into account the actual composition of the TSO
    workforce at each individual airpin some cases, unique work schedules that
    may be implemented at soairports (other than a standard 5-day work week).
    For example, the scheduling tool is based on the model's assumption of a
    20 percent part-time force expresses as a full-time-equivalent level among
    available although few of the larger airports have been able to achieve
    this level of part-time staff. Specifically, only 2 of the 26 category X
    airports had a workforce composed of at least 20 percent part-time staff
    in July 20Because the scheduling tool assumes a 20 percent part-time level
    for TSOFSDs at airports we visited with lower levels of part-time TSOs
    stated they make adjustments to the scheduling tool's output to more
    accureflect the airport's actual mix of full-time and part-time TSOs and
    then develop a work schedule accordingly. In addition, as of September 30,
    2006, TSA data showed that approximately one-third of the nation's
    airports had less than 90 percent of their annual TSO positions
    filledAccording to FSDs we interviewed, however, the scheduling tool
    assthat each airport has its full TSO allocation on board. Moreover,
    according to TSA, the scheduling tool assumes that TSOs across all
    airports have standard 5-day work weeks, although individual a

    full-time and part-time TSOs, and most scheduling anomalies FSDs
    encounter.^5151 The TSA headquarters officials attributed the FSDs'
    comments to misunderstandings regarding the full capabilities of the TSA
    officials acknowledged that the scheduling tool cannot be adjusted to
    reflect mothan a 5-day work week.

    scheduling tool. The officials further explained that the agency has
    dbetter job recently in training field staff in the use of the scheduling
    tothan was done earlier in the Staffing Allocation Model's
    implementation.^52FSDs at the four smaller (category II and III) airports
    we visited statethe scheduling tool was more useful for larger airports
    with more complex scheduling challenges given the size of the workforce,
    the higher passenger volumes, and the larger number of checkpoints and
    terminals. These FSDs stated that smaller airports can more easily predict
    their screening demand and generally said they did not believe that the
    staffing model's scheduling tool added value to their scheduling
    process--especially since they are dealing with small numbers of TSO staff
    and limited passenger and baggage check facilities, for example, havingone
    checkpoint with few lanes. Therefore, they have chosen to continue use
    such locally developed tools, such as spreadsheets. However, TSA
    headquarters officials stated that use of the scheduling tool by all
    airportswill eliminate applications, such as these spreadsheets, that are
    inconsistent with the Staffing Allocation Model and TSA's time and
    attendance reporting system, thereby enhancing efficiency in scheduling
    TSOs. While TSA headquarters officials stated that the scheduling tool is
    capableof preparing schedules for any size airport and accounting for all
    the issues noted as problems by the FSDs we visited, officials are
    currently permitting each FSD to determine whether to use the scheduling
    tool. TSofficials stated that technical improvements planned for the
    scheduling tool will improve its usefulness in preparing TSO schedules.
    For example, installation of high-speed internet connectivity and
    implementation of electronic time and attendance reporting will allow the
    scheduling tool to efficiently maintain up-to-date rosters of available TS

    w

    us they may consider making the tool mandatory. According to TSA,
    electronic time and attendance will improve schby providing connectivity
    between the scheduling tool and TSA's timekeeping system. This automation
    is to enable the automatic linking o ^52 We did not assess the adequacy of
    training of FSDs because it was outside the scope oour work. scheduling
    and timekeeping information and provide planned scheduleand actual time
    worked.

    All 14 FSDs we interviewed identified challenges they faced in deploying
    their TSO workforce. Nine of the 14 airports we visited were below
    theirallocation for TSOs as determined by the staffing model. FSDs at
    these airports cited the inability of TSA's centralized hiring process to
    replTSOs quickly. However, attrition, particularly by part-time TSOs, was
    also cited as a barrier to achieving and maintaining their TSO staffing
    levels. TSA has stated a goal of each FSD maintaining a TSO staffing
    levless than 90 percent of each individual airport's TSO allocation.
    BasTSA data, approximately 53 percent (237) of commercial airports were
    either at, or no less than 10 percent below, their respective TSO
    allocations at the end of fiscal year 2006. Approximately 31 percent of
    airports (140) were below 90 percent of their allocation, and 16 percent
    (71) of airports were 110 percent or more above their allocation.^53
    Sixty-nine of the 71 airports above thei

               the 140 airports below 90 per
               categories II, III, and IV. These smaller airports have
               correspondingly
               greater impact on being above or below their TSO allocations.
               Overalre large airports (categories X and I) have succeeded in
               meeting their
               TSO allocations determined by the Staffing Allocation Model.

    ^53 Due to TSA's expectation that FSDs maintain on-board TSO staffing of
    at least 90 percenof their TSO allocation, in addition to significant
    numbers of airports falling marginalabove and below 100 percent, we used a
    20 percent range (90 to less than 110 perdetermine how many airports were
    above and below their allocation in terms of on-board TSOs. That is,
    airports with less than 90 percent of their allocation were "below" their
    allocation and airports with 110 percent or more of their allocation were
    "above" their irport Category, Compared to TSO Staffing Allocation, in
    Full-Time-Equivalent TSOs

    Note: This figure includes data on federal TSOs only and not on private
    screeners employed atalso stated that airports grouped together under
    TSA's "hub and spoke" organizational structure often share TSO resources
    as needs dictate.^54

    reduce their TSO staffing levels by either (1) attrition or (2)
    transferring their excess TSOs to airports that are below their
    allocation. TSA officials

    advancement opportunities, need for higher paying job, work hours,
    difficulty of work, and job dissatisfaction. At the same time, as shown in
    figure 9, TSO attrition rates, for both full-time and part-time staff,
    decreased from approximately 24 percent to 21 percent from fiscal year
    2004 to fiscal year 2006. However, as previously discussed, the
    part-timTSO attrition rate remains considerably higher than the rate for
    full-time personnel (approximately 46 percent versus 16 percent for fiscal
    ye2006).

    for sharing of management, TSO and operational support staff, and other
    resources amongindividual c

    Figure 9: Attrition Rates for Full-Time and Part-Time TSOs, Fiscal years
    2004 to 2006

    Note: This figure includes data on federal TSOs only and not on private
    screeners em

    reasons were better job opportunity, personal reasons, dissatisfaction
    with their supervisor and undesirable work schedule. TSA plans to conduct
    further analysis of the responses based on whether the TSO was a full-time

    or part-time employee in an effort to determine the unique issues facing
    each group. TSA officials stated that nearly half (47%) of the survey

    ^56 TSA defines absenteeism in terms of unscheduled absences and tardiness
    among the TSOworkforce. Unscheduled absences include calling in sick the
    day of work, arriving two or

    mth

    pre-arranged sick leave, military leave, jury duty, training, etc. TSOs
    are "tardy" when theare 1 or more minutes late for their designated shift.
    TSOs who are more than 2 hours lateare counted as unscheduled absences.
    Figure 10: Average Rate of TSO Absenteeism per 100 TSOs, by Airport
    Category, for Fiscal Years 2004 - 2006

    (fiscal year 2004 to 2006). TSA headquarters officials attributed this
    improvement to the agency's initiatives to reduce injuries among the TSO
    workforce.

    Figure 11: TSA Workman's Compensation Claims for Calendar Years 2004 -
    2006throug

    Note: The data in this figure include all workman's compensation claims
    received by the Department of Labor from TSA and are not limited
    exclusively to TSOs. However, TSA officials stated that the vast majority
    of these claims are from their TSO workforce. Despite the acknowledgement
    of problems with attrition and absenteeism, TSA's use of overtime, which
    does not count against the full-time-equivalent rate at airports, has
    remained relatively stable--4 to 5 percent--during fiscal years 2004
    through 2006 with larger airports generally having higher overtime rates
    each year. Figure 12: TSO Overtime Hours as a Percentage of Total Hours
    Worked, by Airport Category, during Fiscal Years 2004 - 2006

    Note: This figure includes data on federal TSOs only and not on private
    screeners employed at the 6 airports across the nation utilizing these
    personnel.

    FSDs we spoke to cited a need to use TSOs for various operational support
    functions on either a full-time or part-time basis due to a lack of

    with increasing the efficiency of the screening process. For example, an
    air carrier at a category X airport was c

    aconsisting of representatives of TSA, air carriers, and the airport auto
    examine checkpoints and suggest ways to make the screening procesmore
    efficient. One initiative that resulted from this effort is that the
    carrier provided staff at passenger screening checkpoints to assist
    passengers i

    from their person before going through the walk through metal detector.
    According to the air carrier, it spent about $15,000 to $18,000 of its own

    than 100 airports each pay period since the local hiring initiative was
    implemented. Table 4 provides a summary of the national human
    resourcrelated initiatives intended to help increase T

    e

    ves by TSA for Its TSO Workforce ive Description In March 2006, TSA
    shifted responsibilit

    hiring process. r Progression Recognizing that the scre

    configuration changes and small equipment purchases (like roller tables
    and floor mats) that

    S

    In addition to these workforce initiatives, TSA also continues to usefrom
    the national screening force to address short-term needs at
    individuairports nationwide. According to TSA, the national screening
    force is generally deployed only to those airports experiencing
    significant staffingshortfalls associated with increased seasonal traffic
    or when a speevent--such as a Super Bowl or a large national
    conference--occurequiring an immediate influx of additional, though
    temporary, TSO support. Of the 14 FSDs we interviewed, 6 stated that they
    had used the national screening force at least once. All but one of these
    FSDs told us that the national scree

    such as heavy passenger loads stemming from hurricanes Katrina and RitIn
    the other instance, at a category X airport, the FSD stated that, becof
    challenges in hiring and retaining TSOs for this airport, he has hadrely
    on about 60 members of the National Screening Force deployed to his
    airport since 2004. However, in November 2006, TSA officials stated that
    as of November 1, 2006, there were no National Screening Force TSOassigned
    to this airport, which they attributed to TSA's local hiring initiative.
    TSA officials stated that they are examining methods for addressing
    hiringand retention challenges at specific airports where these problems
    arparticularly acute. For example, as shown in table 4 above, TSA has
    implemented a $500 retention incentive for TSOs at 22 "hard-to-hire"
    airports who were on-board as of April 15, 2006. As also shown in the
    table, to help with hiring and retention of part-time TSOs, TSA is
    piloting a program that offers full health benefits to part-time TSOs at
    six airports. Athese airports, part-time TSOs receive the same health
    benefits as full-tiTSOs. At all other airports, part-time TSOs do not
    receive health benefIn addition to incentives and expanding health
    benefits, TSA is consideringother options for attracting and retaining
    TSOs. For example, these option

    In addition to the national initiatives underway, several FSDs at the 14
    airports we visited were implementing their own local initiatives to
    address some of the staffing challenges they faced at their airports. For
    example, after receiving local hiring authority under the nationwide local
    hiring initiative, one FSD we spoke to stated that he puts brand-new TSO
    hires out on the passenger lanes as "helpers" so that they may better
    understand what the job entails. He expects that this will cut down on
    attrition at his airport and help reduce wasted training resources fowho
    leave within short periods of being hired. Regarding absenteeism, all the
    FSDs we spoke to stated that they monitored unscheduled absences and
    counseled TSOs as needed. To help reduce the number of on the jobinjuries,
    6 of the 14 FSDs we interviewed said they had local initiatives, such as
    injury prevention committees and detailed instruction on safe lifting
    techniques. To help mitigate inadequate numbers of part-time TSOstwo TSA
    managers we interviewed said that they asked some of their futime TSOs to
    work "split" shifts to cover demands in peak periods thawould normally go
    to part-time TSOs, one of whom might work the first peak period shift and
    another who might work the second peak period shift. The result was that
    it eliminated the staffing of full-time TSOsnon-peak periods when they
    were most likely to be idle. The experiencethese managers illustrates an
    attempt at an efficient use of TSOs and also the primary reason that TSA
    has tried to achieve a mix of 20 percent part-time to 80 percent full-time
    TSOs. Specifically, using part-time TSOs can help to permit adequate
    staffing during peak periods while avoiding the consequent overstaffing
    stemming from having the same number of TSOs on duty during non-peak
    periods. Additionally, to maximize the flexibiin staffing passenger and
    checked baggage screening checkpoints, 3 of the 10 FSDs whose TSOs were
    not all dual-trained stated that they were working to increase the number
    of dual-trained TSOs--TSOs trained and certified in both pass

    v

    Given that many of TSA's workforce initiatives were only recently
    implemented or are in the planning stages, we could not assess the extto
    which these initiatives achieved the intended results. TSA human capital
    officials told us that they plan to establish performance metrics to use
    in evaluating their workforce initiatives and use the results of the
    evaluations to make any needed changes to their approach. TSA's use of a
    staffing allocation model to help allocate its firesources in a manner
    that ensures security and minimizes wait times helped guide its allocation
    of resources. While we recognize the difficulty in developing precise
    assumptions given the dynamic nature of the aviation industry, the
    assumptions used in the staffing allocation model should reasonably
    reflect actual operating conditions. We are encouraged that TSA has es

    steps in the right direction, witand prioritizing which assumptions to

         ng personn
         ating condi          e been used to perform operational as
                              directly accounted for this for the
         time in the s        on model for fiscal year 2007.  We recogniz to
                              perform operational support duce on TSOs for
                              operational support rform the functions they were
                              hired ton scheduling TSOs so that the right
                              ckpoints at the right times, underminesining them
                              in screening functions, and ning opportunities.
                              Therefore, it is
         opriate to uSD       orm operational support functions and to n TSOs
         sist TSA in          entify TSO staffing levels that reasonablyndividual
                              airports and to help ensure tant Secretary for
                              Transportation ctions:
         lish e that tately r plan for reviewing all of the cation Model on a
                              periodic basis to ult in TSO
         tablish a p          SOs can be used to provide operational
         rovided a 26, 200    rt to DHS for review and comment. On t report,
         highlighted several  orkforce management initiatives it he already
         to DHS               discussed in the draft report ent.
         rding ou             that TSA establish a formal, documented tions in
                              the Staffing Allocation Model and stated that TSA
                              has already begun
         ation Modbegun nd    or fiscal year 2007. DHS also stated
         prioritize the
         staffing model
         assumptions for
         periodic review
         re encouragnd emp    of this process, TSA plans to use formte the
                              staffing model's assumptionalidity of TS
         concuOs can          mendation to establish a policy for
                              operational support. DHS stated thas
                              and Human Capital are working uld
                              define when TSOs might be usedS also
                              stated that TSA e
         policy wiend co      r degree of structure and guidance to operational
                              support positions. o the Secretary of Homeland
                              Security; Transportation; and

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    mat (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
    of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are
    listed in appendix IV.

    Brian J. Lepore Acting Director Homeland Security and Justice

    The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in
    December 2004, required the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
    to develop and submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committeeon
    Transportation and Infrastructure, standards for determining the aviation
    security staffing for all airports at which TSA provides or
    oversescreening services by March 2005.^1 These standards are to provide
    the necessary levels of aviation security and ensure that the average
    aviation security-related delay experienced by passengers is minimized.
    This provision of the act also mandated that we conduct an analysis of
    TSAstaffing standards. To assess TSA's efforts in developing a staffing
    allocation model that ensures that it provides the necessary levels of
    aviation security and that the average aviation security-related delay
    experie

    o How does TSA ensure its Staffing Allocation Model provides a sufficient
    number of Transportation Security Officers (TSO) to pepassenger and
    checked baggage screening at each airport and what challenges has it faced
    while implementing the model?

    Our work generally focused on the two major components of TSA's
    determination of TSO staffing at the nation's airports. First, at the
    Theadquarters level, we interviewed (and reviewed documentation provided
    by) officials responsible for the development, implementation, and ongoing
    monitoring of the Staffing Allocation Model and its determination of the
    annual allocation of TSOs to each of the nation's commercial airports.
    Second, at the field level, we interviewed TSAselected airports who were
    responsible for working within their allocation to deploy sufficient TSO
    staff to their airports' passenger and checked baggage screening
    operations.

    During our design phase, we visited six airports selected based on
    location, airport category,^2 and participation in TSA's Screening
    Partnership Program.^3 Table 5 provides information on the airports we
    visited during the design phase. Table 5: Airports Visited during Design
    Phase Geographic location Airport category Screening Partnership Program
    participation Texas:  o Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport  o William
    P. Hobby Airport X I No No

    Washington, D.C. (Metro):  o Washington-Dulles International Airport  o
    Washington-Regan National Airport X X No No California:

               Souce: GAO review of TSA data. er completing the design phase of
               our study, we visited eight additioports, shown in table 6,
               representing a geographic mix of large and
               ed these airports by choosing two airports in each of categories
               X, I, and II with a similar number of annual passenger lanements

               e

    ^2 TSA classifies the commercial airports in the United States into one of
    five security ricategories (X, I, II, III, and IV). In general, category X
    airports have the largest number passenger boardings, and category IV
    airports have the smallest. ^3The Aviation and Transportation Security
    Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 59established TSA and assigned TSA with
    the responsibility o

    44901(a). The act also required that TSA allow commercial airports to
    apply to Ttransition from a federal to a private screener workforce. See S
    44920. To support this effort, TSA created the Screening Partnership
    Program to allow all commercial airports an opportunity to apply to TSA
    for permission to use qualified private screening contractors and private
    screeners. There are currently six airports participating in the Screening
    Partnership Program, including Jackson Hole, Kansas City International,
    Greater RochesInternational, San Francisco International, Sioux Falls
    Regional, and Tupelo Regional. ^4 Enplanements are the number of airplane
    passengers

    and full time equivalent allocations under the Screening Allocation Model.
    We also selected two additional airports in category III based solely on
    their geographic proximity to two of the airports we visited in the larger
    airport categories. All of the nation's airports in the categories we
    select(categories X, I, II, and III) to visit collectively comprise more
    than 90 percent of TSA's total TSO allocation nationwide. Phase tegory
    2005 total enplanements2006 SAM allocation 2006 average peak wait time

    17,433,663 733.9 7.84,211,461 292.1 8.274,791,100 217.4 1

    M

    734,084 101.4

    More details about the scope and methodology of our work regarding each of
    the objectives are presented in the following sections, respectively. To
    determine how TSA

    p

    o

    in

    assumptions to tappropriate TSOprovided by these officials, on th

    Appendix I: Methodology

    checkpoints and checked baggage screening areas. We also obtained data on
    the changes in nationwide TSO allocations since 2004 and examinehow TSA,
    using the model, ensures that it has a sufficient number of Tto perform
    passenger and checked baggage screening. We also examined how TSA ensures
    the model complies with statutory requirements--specifically, whether the
    model (1) provides the necessalevels of passenger and baggage security,
    (2) minimizes average passengerwait times, and (3) ensures that TSA
    remains in compliance with the congressionally mandated
    full-time-equivalent TSO cap. To that end, we interviewed TSA headquarters
    officials and reviewed Screening AlloModel-related documentation to
    ascertain TSA's approach to monitorperformance of the model. We also
    analyzed TSA's airport-specific performance data to determine how, if at
    all, various workforce indicahave chang

               overtime usage, TSO injury rates, number of TSOs devoted to
               inistrative duties, level of usage of part-time TSOs, and use of
               the tional TSO force.

               A

               details on the extent to which they participated in the
               development of thffing Allocation Model and their level of input
               into the model's annu

               T

               d

    takes into account the unique characteristics of the airport and the
    Tworkforce. These characteristics include airport layout, passenger
    checkpoint configuration, and passenger and baggage screening procedures
    and equipment. We also examined how the Staffing AllocatioModel addresses
    changes in air traffic and airport layout, changesecurity screening
    procedures, and changes in screening equipment. In addition to the
    discussions with FSDs and other TSA officials, during our airport visits
    we also physically observed the airport's passenger checkpoints and
    baggage scree

    allocation differences in passenger wait times, and (3) how t

    these two airports affected the FSD's ability to schedule TSOs to
    perequired security screening activities.^5

    and airport layout, changes in security screening procedures, and
    changesin screening equipment.

    We also analyzed certain TSA airport-specific performance data to
    determine how these factors impact FSDs' ability to effectively schedule
    ^5 We excluded category IV airports from our study because they make up
    less than 3 percent of TSOs allocated nationwide under the SAM and
    passenger boardings at these airports are much more limited and sporadic.

    their TSO allocation. Finally, we interviewed TSA airport and human
    capital officials to determine workforce actions

          conucted our work from                          g
          rdnce with generally a
    ristics (physical confige model input data specifi
          3.1ercent of its seats filled.

    airports) into the proces

    model.^45 Overall, it took Regal and TSA almost a year to get the new
    Staffing Allocation Model stabilized and ready for initial roll-out. TSA
    obtained data for, developed, and began deploying the model for testing in
    the summer of 2004 and first used it for the fiscal year 2005 TSO
    stafallocation for the nation's airports. The latest TSO staffing numbers
    based on the model (for fiscal year 2006) were sent out to the field in
    October 2005. TSA was in the process of developing allocations for fiscal
    year 20at the time of our report. The Staffing Allocation Model consists
    of three diff

    flight sModel Components

                             e i    t's co l.
                  fundameowever,         e

                                 nd dheadq
    hich the obtain basic inf   meebout
                        gether w      port
                         utput--        of
                             ate      ers,
                              sc

    ^6 The GRA consulting firm engages in an ongoing data collection effort.
    It gathers future flight schedules, historical passenger loads, and
    connecting percentages--all of which can be adjusted with appropriate
    approval. Passenger loads and baggage counts are purely historical data
    that can't be routinely adjusted. model sets a threshold of a 10-minute
    wait before opening additional lanes, if available, based on passenger
    volumes.  o Peak month screening demand--TSA derives the Staffing Allo

    85th percentile day of each airport's peak month. In determining the 85th
    percentile day, TSA must first determine each airport's peak month by
    reviewing historical monthly passenger lo

    selection of the peak month is based on the average demand day (based on
    passenger load) for each month with the peak month being the month with
    the highest average demand day. Since daily screening

    available) TSA must approximate each month's average demand day bdividing
    the monthly passenger load data by the number of days in thmonth. This
    assumption is linked to TSA's 10-minute wait time goal foprocessing
    passengers and baggage through security. That is, accordinto TSA
    industrial engineers, basing the Staffing Allocation Model on thaverage
    peak demand day is intended to ensure that, on an annual basis, 85 percent
    or more of the total passengers screened in U.S. airports will not have to
    wait more than 10 minutes to be screeFurther, based on TSA's analysis,
    basing the model on this level ofdemand may result in TSA taking longer
    than 10 minutes to screen passengers during 7 percent of an airport's days
    during the year.According to TSA, these 25 to 30 days are typically the
    exceptionallhigh travel days such as the days before the Thanksgiving and
    Christmas holidays. Conversely, for purposes of the annual allocation, TSA
    industrial engineers added that basing the model's demand levelon the
    average peak demand day may result in TSA screening passengers in 10
    minutes or less during 93 percent of the airport's dayduring the year
    (approximately 335 to 340 travel days over the airport's year). Lastly,
    when determining the annual allocation, TSA officials run the model on a
    representative week during the peak month.^7 By basing airports' staffing
    allocations on their peak month pavolume, TSA intends to ensure that
    airports will have some staff to accommodate nonscreening activities such
    as training and annualduring off-peak periods. In addition, the peak
    month-based allocationintended to provide airports with excess

    ^7 TSA officials stated that, for the annual allocation run, they must run
    the model based on a full week (as if trying to schedule for that week)
    since it is not practibased on only 1 day. unforeseen events such as
    changes in flight schedules, injuries, and sick leave. In addition to
    nonpassenger screening demand, passprocessing wait time, and the
    calculation of demand, the following assumptions were included in the
    fiscal year 2007 model:  o Line item full-time-equivalent allocation for
    TSO time paid but not worked--In fiscal year 2007, TSA, for the first
    time, provided a sepline item allocation for the various categories of TSO
    time paid not worked. These categories include vacation, sick, comp,
    injury, and military leave. Prior to fiscal year 2007, TSO time paid not
    worked was indirectly accounted for within the peak month screening
    demand/85percentile day assumption.

    and part-time TSO full-time equivalents based on each airport's individual
    part-time to full-time TSO ratio. Prior to fiscal year 2007, TSAassumed
    the same part-time goal for all category X, I, and II airports--regardless
    of their actual ratios.  o Passenger checkpoint throughput--The passenger
    checkpoint throughput is the number of passengers that are processed per
    security checkpoint lane, per hour. The model assumes this to be 200.  o
    Checked baggage processing rates--The checked baggage processing rate is
    the number of bags that various types of screening equipment will process
    per hour. Table 7 shows baggage processing rates basedon type of screening
    equipment and whether the baggage scsystem is in-line^8 or stand-alone.^9

    o required to adequately staff screening equipment. As with checked
    baggage processing rates, baggage staffing requirements vary by screening
    equipment, whether the equipment is stand-alone or inline, and by airport
    category.  o Staffing per lane by airport category--The model allocates
    staffing byairport category and by lane type. A standard checkpoint lane
    is ^8 A bag screening methodology that employs the automated movement of a
    bag in anof an explosive detection system machine.

    ^9 A bag screening methodology that employs a manual (as opposed to an
    automated) movement of bag in and out of an explosive detection system
    machine. that processes only passengers who are not selectees (i.e., those
    passengers selected for more intense screening). An integrated checkpoint
    lane is a lane that processes both standard passengers aselectees. A
    dedicated checkpo

    o Standard alarm rates--The model assumes specific rates for alarms
    oscreening equipment used at both passenger checkpoints and check areas.
    The model also assumes a selectee rate for passenger checkpoints.

    AssuNonpassenger demand (percent) Passenger processing time (in minutePeak month
    demand Full-time-equivalent credits for time paid worked (in percent)

    Value or description 4 Based on 95^th percentile day Annual leave
    allocation 14.5Sick leave 3.7Comp time Injury time off 0.2Military leave s
    5.0 Variable by airport

    175EDS Equipment Type Stand-Alone Invision CTX 9000 160 Invision CTX 5500
    200 Invision CTX 2500 115 N/Ar Value or description y Equipment type
    Stand-aloneIn-line In-line (with OEDS 20.625 0.62ETD 1.251.25 1.2 Land
    type

    Standard 4.25 Integrated 4.25 0.Dedicated 2.5 All lanes 3.5 0All lanes 2.0
    0Standard passenger Staffing sufficient up to 6 percent selectee alarm
    Selectee Staffing su

    Source: TSA.

               Legend: EDS = explosive detection system; ETD = explosive trace
               detection; ETP = explosive trace portal; OSR = on-screen
               resolution; N/A = not available.

               ^aStaffing is numb

               er of TSO staff per piece of equipment or passenger checkpoint
               lane. e is a passenger who meets certain criteria based on the
               Computer Assisted Passenger

               ^bA selecteP

               Screening System or some other TSA-approved process and is,
               therefore, subject to more intense screening such as wanding and
               bag checks.

               In

               also incorporates adjustments to flight schedules (increase

               v

               any allowances for projected expansions to the airport's
               configuration. gal also determines, based on inpu

               Ra

               ort officials need to open more passenger processing lanes in
               response to increased passenger flow (not to exceed the total
               numbe

               a

               ilable). An individual airport FSD cannot change either the model
               assumptions or the baseline configuration for their assigned
               airport without TSA headquarters approval, but can petition TSA
               headquartersnge assumptions and baseline configuration

               ca

               r not reflective of his/her airport.

               Sare Airline Solutions, Inc., provides the commercial,
               off-the-shelf otware for the staffing allocation model's
               scheduling tool. The Sabre

               sscheduling t

    rosters an airport's employee group in a database (shifts, schedules,
    personal information, training, etc.) while Staff Plan recommends a
    mfull-time and part-time TSOs and generates a daily work schedule based
    onthe Regal software's staffing requirement output. Sabre takes th

    scheduling plans based on that figure (if the airport uses Sabre for
    scheduling) using the 80/20 full-time/part-time TSO mix for category X

    Appendix II: DeTSA

    elements and assumptions are accurate for their airports and bringing to
    headquarters' attention any factors that should be reviewed to
    determinechanges to the model for their airports may be appropriate.

    Brian J. Lepore (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. In addition to those
    named above, Maria Strudwick, Assistant Director; David Alexander; Richard
    Ascarate; Philip Caramia; Kathryn Godfrey; Michael Harmond; Thomas
    Lombardi; Enemencio Sanchez; Edith SPamela Valentine; Vaughn Williams; and
    Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to

    TSA Staffing Standards TSA Staffing Standards TSA Staffing Standards TSA
    Staffing Standards TSA Staffing Standards TSA Staffing Standards

    Aviation Security: Progress Made in Systematic Planning to Guide
    KeyInvestment Decisions, but More Work Remains. GAO-07-448T. Washington,
    D.C.: February 13, 2007.

    Related GAO Products

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-299.

    To view the full product, including the scope

    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Brian Lepore at (202) 512-4523,
    leporeb@gao.gov.

    Highlights of GAO-07-299, a report to congressional committees

    February 2007

    AVIATION SECURITY

    TSA's Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for Allocating Staff among
    Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has identified the
    transportation security officer (TSO) workforce as its most important
    asset in securing commercial aviation. TSOs screen passengers and baggage
    to prevent dangerous items onboard aircraft. In response to an
    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requirement to
    develop standards for TSO staffing, TSA developed a staffing model to
    guide its TSO allocations across airports. The act also required GAO to
    analyze TSA's staffing standards.

    GAO analyzed (1) how TSA ensures its model provides a sufficient TSO staff
    to perform screening and (2) how TSA deploys its TSOs and factors that
    affect deployment. GAO analyzed data and reviewed documentation about the
    model and discussed it with TSA headquarters officials and TSA officials
    at 14 airports.

    [75]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS) direct the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security to (1)
    establish a mechanism to ensure periodic assessment of model assumptions
    and (2) establish a policy for when TSOs can be used to provide
    operational support. DHS reviewed a draft of this report and concurred
    with GAO's findings and recommendations.

    TSA aims to ensure that its Staffing Allocation Model provides a
    sufficient number of TSOs to perform passenger and checked baggage
    screening by: (1) building assumptions into its allocation model that are
    designed to calculate the necessary levels of TSOs to ensure security and
    minimize wait times, and (2) employing multiple monitoring mechanisms for
    the sufficiency of the model's outputs. However, Federal Security
    Directors (FSD)--the ranking TSA authorities responsible for leading and
    coordinating security activities at airports--and our own analysis
    identified concerns with some of the fiscal year 2006 model assumptions.
    Although TSA officials said they plan an annual review of select
    assumptions and based changes for fiscal year 2007 on such a review of
    selected fiscal year 2006 assumptions, TSA does not have a mechanism for
    prioritizing its review and for assuring that all assumptions are
    periodically validated to help ensure that they reflect operating
    conditions. Without periodic validation, TSA risks basing its allocations
    on assumptions that do not reflect operating conditions. For example, TSA
    acknowledged that it had not assessed the assumption that its method of
    calculating screening demand provides sufficient surplus staff to account
    for time away from screening for leave, training and operational support.
    Some FSDs told GAO their allocations did not include sufficient surplus in
    fiscal year 2006. Moreover, although TSA officials stated that the fiscal
    year 2007 model will include an allowance for time spent on operational
    support duties, TSA has not determined under what circumstances it is
    appropriate to use TSOs to perform operational support functions or
    provided FSDs with guidance on when TSOs can be used this way. Without
    establishing such guidance, FSDs may over rely on TSOs to perform
    operational support functions.

    TSA has vested its FSDs with responsibility for managing their TSO
    allocations in light of local circumstances and challenges. Nevertheless,
    factors outside the model's determination of overall staffing levels can
    affect scheduling effectiveness. For example, FSDs face scheduling
    challenges including injuries, absenteeism, and time spent away from
    primary screening duties for training and operational support. Officials
    described initiatives underway to address some of these issues. However,
    it is too soon to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives.

    Annual TSO Allocation Process

    References

    Visible links
      74. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-166
    *** End of document. ***