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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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,
[email protected].
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. ***