AVIATION SECURITY

TSA Uses Current 

Assumptions and 

Airport-Specific Data 

for Its Staffing 

Process and Monitors 

Passenger Wait Times 

Using Daily 

Operations Data

Report to Congressional Committees

February 2018

GAO-18-236

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-236, a report to 

congressional committees

February 2018

AVIATION SECURITY

TSA Uses Current Assumptions and Airport-Specific 

Data for Its Staffing Process and Monitors Passenger 

Wait Times Using Daily Operations Data

What GAO Found

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) modifies staffing assumptions 

used in its computer-based staffing model (model) and tailors staffing levels to 

individual airport needs. Specifically, TSA works with a contractor annually to 

evaluate the assumptions used in the model and modifies the model’s 

assumptions as needed. For example, TSA adjusted its model after contractor 

evaluations conducted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 found that transportation 

security officers (TSO) needed more time to screen passengers and their 

baggage when using one type of screening equipment. Moreover, in 2016, TSA 

began using forecasts on the number of passengers screened at each airport’s 

checkpoints (throughput) to better allocate staff commensurate with the expected 

rate of increase in passenger throughput at each airport. Furthermore, prompted 

by the long wait times at some airports in 2016, for the 2017 model TSA officials 

used actual expedited screening data, specific to each individual airport, rather 

than relying on the system-wide estimate used in 2016. TSA officials also use 

other information specific to each airport—such as staff training needs—to 

further tailor the TSO allocation because the initial allocation resulting from the 

model does not reflect the full range of operating conditions at individual airports.

TSA uses data to monitor passenger wait times and throughput on a daily basis 

and responds to increases. For example, TSA’s Airport Operations Center 

(AOC) monitors daily wait times and passenger throughput from 28 airports that 

TSA officials say represent the majority of passenger throughput nationwide or 

are operationally significant. Furthermore, TSA officials at airports are required to 

report to the AOC when an event occurs—such as equipment malfunctions—that 

affects airport screening operations and results in wait times that are greater 

than 30 minutes in standard screening lanes. GAO analyzed wait time data for 

the AOC-monitored airports for the period of January 2015 through May 2017 

and found that TSA’s reported wait times met its standard of less than 30 

minutes in standard screening 99 percent of the time. Within that time frame, two 

airports accounted for the longest wait times in the spring of 2016. TSA officials 

identified several tools, such as passenger screening canines, that they use to 

respond to increases in passenger wait times at these airports.

TSA has taken steps to improve information sharing with airline and airport

officials (stakeholders) about staffing and related airport screening operations, 

and most stakeholders GAO interviewed reported improved satisfaction with 

information sharing. However, some stakeholders noted differences in the type 

and extent of information shared. According to TSA officials, stakeholders can 

elevate any problems they experience with information sharing within TSA to 

ensure information is shared regularly with stakeholders.

View GAO-18-236. For more information, 

contact Jennifer A. Grover at (202) 512-7141 

or groverj@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

TSA employs about 43,000 TSOs who 

screen over 2 million passengers and 

their baggage each day at airports in 

the United States. TSA allocates TSOs

to airports using both a computerbased staffing model and information 

from airports that are intended to 

provide each airport with the optimum 

number of TSOs. In the spring of 2016, 

long screening checkpoint lines at 

certain U.S. airports raised questions

about TSA’s process for allocating 

TSOs to airports. 

The Aviation Security Act of 2016 

includes a provision for GAO to review 

TSA’s process for allocating TSOs. 

This report examines how (1) TSA 

modifies staffing assumptions and 

tailors staffing levels to airports’ needs, 

(2) TSA monitors wait times and 

throughput and adjusts resources 

accordingly, and (3) TSA shares

information with stakeholders about 

staffing and related screening 

procedures at airports. GAO reviewed

TSA documentation describing how the 

agency modifies staffing assumptions

and manages stakeholder 

coordination. GAO also analyzed 

passenger wait time and throughput

data from January 2015 through May 

2017 for the 28 airports monitored by

headquarters. GAO visited eight 

airports selected on the basis of

passenger volume and other factors

and interviewed TSA officials and 

stakeholders at those locations.

GAO is not making any 

recommendations.
Page i GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

Letter 1

Background 7

TSA Modifies Its Staffing Assumptions and Relies on Airport 

Information to Tailor TSO Staffing Levels to Individual Airports 12

TSA Uses Data to Monitor Airport Operations and Respond to 

Increases in Passenger Wait Times and Throughput 16

TSA Has Taken Steps to Improve Information Sharing with 

Stakeholders and Most Stakeholders We Interviewed Reported 

Improved Satisfaction 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 25

Figure

Figure 1: Transportation Security Administration’s Process for 

Determining Transportation Security Officers Allocations 

at Airports 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

Abbreviations

AAAE American Association of Airport Executives 

ACI-NA Airports Council International-North America

AIT advanced imaging technology 

AOC Airport Operations Center 

FSD Federal Security Director 

NDF National Deployment Force

OSO Office of Security Operations 

OSPIE Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement 

PMIS Performance Measurement Information System 

RAP Resource Allocation Plan 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

TSO transportation security officer 

WTMD walk through metal detectors 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
Page 1 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

February 1, 2018

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael McCaul

Chairman

The Honorable Bennie Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) employs about 43,000 transportation security 

officers (TSOs) who screen over 2 million passengers and their 

accessible and checked baggage each day at airports in the United 

States.1 TSA allocates TSOs to airports using its Resource Allocation 

Plan (RAP), which is intended to provide each airport with the optimum 

number of TSOs needed to screen passengers for threats to aviation 

security, such as prohibited and other potentially dangerous items.2 In the 

spring of 2016, unusually long screening checkpoint lines at certain major 

U.S. airports raised questions about TSA’s process for allocating TSOs to 

airports. Identifying and deploying the right number of TSOs to meet 

individual airport needs throughout the United States is a critical TSA 

responsibility for carrying out the agency’s mission to protect the nation’s 

transportation systems, while also ensuring the free movement of people 

and commerce.

 1

TSOs are screening personnel employed by TSA. In this report, references to TSOs do 

not include screening personnel employed by qualified private-sector companies under 

contract with TSA to perform screening operations at the 21 airports participating in TSA’s 

Screening Partnership Program (SPP). See 49 U.S.C. § 44920.TSA oversees the 

performance of screening operations at SPP airports, and the screening personnel at SPP 

airports must adhere to the same screening requirements applicable to TSOs. 

2

According to TSA headquarters officials, TSA identifies the number of TSOs for the RAP 

based on the number of positions authorized by the agency’s budget, which serves as a 

constraint on the number of TSOs that can be staffed to airports.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

To implement passenger screening and pursue efficient operations, in 

addition to relying on TSOs, TSA works with officials from airlines and 

airports, as well as officials from associations that represent airlines and 

airports. In this report, we refer to all of these officials as ‘stakeholders.’ At 

airports, Federal Security Directors (FSDs) and their designees work with 

individual airport operators and airlines to, among other things, adjust 

TSA resources (i.e., TSOs and screening assets such as metal detectors) 

in response to increases in the number of passengers that are screened 

at each checkpoint (throughput) and monitor passenger wait times at 

checkpoints.3

In 2007, we reviewed the RAP (referred to as the Staffing Allocation 

Model at that time) and recommended, among other things, that TSA 

establish a mechanism to ensure periodic assessment of the 

assumptions, such as passenger and checked baggage screening rates, 

underlying the RAP.4 TSA agreed with the recommendation and in 

December 2007 developed a plan to periodically assess the RAP’s 

assumptions.5

The Aviation Security Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to conduct 

a review of TSA’s RAP.6 This report addresses (1) how TSA modifies 

3

FSDs are TSA officials responsible for overseeing TSA security activities, including 

passenger and checked baggage screening, at one or more commercial airports. See 49 

U.S.C. § 44933. Some FSDs oversee more than one airport within a geographic area; 

thus, not all FSDs are located at the airports they oversee. Airport operators have direct 

responsibility for implementing security requirements in accordance with their TSAapproved airport security programs. Airport security programs generally cover the day-today aviation operations and implement security requirements for which airports are 

responsible. See generally 49 C.F.R. pt. 1542. 

4

For the purposes of this report, the RAP refers to both the computer-based staffing 

allocation model utilized by TSA to develop a base allocation of staff for each airport as 

well as modifications made to that base allocation by TSA officials. We will use the term 

“model” when we refer specifically to the computer-based staffing allocation model.

5GAO, Aviation Security, TSA’s Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for Allocating Staff 

among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed, GAO-07-299 

(Washington, DC: Feb. 2007).

6

Pub. L. No. 114-190, tit. III, subtit. C, § 3302(f), 130 Stat. 615, 654 (2016) (enacted on 

July 15, 2016, as part of Title III of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016). 

Section 3302(f) provides that GAO is to, not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment, review TSA’s staffing allocation model and report to the Committee on 

Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate. GAO provided a briefing with our preliminary 

findings to the committees on January 10, 2017, and as agreed with your staff, are 

presenting our final findings in this report. 
Page 3 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

staffing assumptions and has mechanisms in place to tailor TSO staffing 

levels to individual airports’ needs, (2) how TSA monitors wait times and 

throughput and adjusts resources accordingly, and (3) how TSA has 

shared information with stakeholders about staffing and related screening 

procedures at airports, and what are the views of selected stakeholders 

on these information sharing efforts.

To gather information for each of our objectives, we visited eight airports 

– Chicago O’Hare International, Chicago Midway International, 

Dallas/Fort Worth International, Dallas Love Field, Los Angeles 

International, Hollywood Burbank International, Ronald Reagan 

Washington National, and Richmond International. We selected these 

airports based on a variety of factors, including the number of TSOs, 

passenger volume, differences in geography, and longer-than-usual wait 

times in fiscal year 2016, when passengers experienced long screening 

wait times at a number of airports. At each airport, we interviewed airportlevel TSA officials, TSOs, airport operators, and airline officials. The 

results from our site visits cannot be generalized to all airports at which 

TSA has screeners. However, they provided important context about, and 

insights into, TSA’s operations and coordination with stakeholders at 

airports.

To determine how TSA modifies its staffing assumptions, we reviewed 

TSA guidance and policies, including the agency’s plan for assessing the 

assumptions used in the RAP, such as the frequency and methods for 

reviewing passenger and baggage screening processes.7 In addition, to 

determine whether TSA modified assumptions used in the RAP, we 

reviewed TSA internal reports regarding the assumptions used in the 

RAP in 2016 and 2017 as well as a 2016 assessment of TSA’s approach 

to staffing at airports overall.8 To evaluate the extent to which TSA has 

mechanisms in place to tailor staffing allocations to individual airports’ 

needs, we analyzed TSA procedures, such as annual reviews of 

 7

TSA’s plan for assessing the assumptions used in the RAP is referred to by TSA as the 

“Sustainment Plan,” and was developed in response to our recommendations in fiscal 

year 2007. The Sustainment Plan is intended to ensure a regular assessment of the 

factors that affect passenger and baggage screening rates, such as screening equipment 

processing rates and staffing needs for each type of equipment, among other things. For 

the purposes of this report, we will use the term “evaluation plan” when we refer to the 

Sustainment Plan.

8

TSA hired a third-party contractor to, among other things, identify and propose modeling 

and simulation tools to optimize staffing allocations. The contractor provided a final 

briefing to TSA leadership in the fall of 2016.
Page 4 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

individual airports’ configurations conducted by airport-level officials that 

govern staffing allocation, including procedures for modifying the RAP 

and tailoring staffing allocations to individual airports’ needs. We reviewed 

data on TSA staffing allocations and interviewed TSA headquarters 

officials responsible for modifying the RAP to confirm our understanding 

of the processes used and TSA officials at the airport-level regarding any 

modifications to airport staffing levels resulting from this process.

To determine how TSA monitors wait times and throughput9 and adjusts 

resources accordingly, we reviewed TSA documentation on wait times 

and throughput, such as TSA’s Operations Directive, Reporting Customer 

Throughput and Wait Times, as well as TSA reports on wait times and 

throughput. To better understand trends in passenger wait times, we 

analyzed wait time and throughput data for the period of January 2015 

through May 2017 for 28 airports that, according to TSA headquarters 

officials, represent the majority of passenger throughput nationwide or are 

operationally significant.10 According to TSA directives and TSA 

headquarters officials, TSA began requiring that FSDs and their 

designees collect actual instead of estimated wait times for all airports in 

July 2014, so we began our analysis in 2015, the first full calendar year 

after this requirement was in place.11 We assessed the reliability of the 

data used in our analyses by checking the data for any discrepancies, 

reviewing TSA reports on the quality of the data, as well as related 

database documentation, and working with agency officials responsible 

for compiling the data to understand the data collection and reporting 

methodologies. We determined that passenger wait time data and 

throughput data for the 28 airports monitored by TSA headquarters were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. 

Additionally, using the same data, we analyzed the extent to which TSA 

met its wait time standards for the period of January 2015 through May 

 9

Wait times are the amount of time passengers spend from the end of the queue until they 

pass through a screening device, either the walk through metal detector (WTMD) or the 

advanced imaging technology (AIT) units, often referred to as body scanners. Throughput 

is the number of passengers that are screened at each checkpoint. 

10There are about 440 TSA-regulated airports in the United States. Starting in May 2016, 

TSA headquarters began conducting near real time monitoring of operations at 28 airports 

through the establishment of the Airport Operations Center (AOC). 

11 TSA required FSDs and their designees to collect actual wait times from 2002 through 

2007 and beginning again in July 2014. From 2008 through June 2014, TSA required that 

FSDs collect data on wait time ranges, such as between 20 to 29 minutes or greater than 

30 minutes. 
Page 5 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

2017 at the 28 airports. We also interviewed headquarters officials 

responsible for overseeing TSA’s collection and use of wait time and 

throughput data. To obtain the perspective of TSA officials at airports, we 

interviewed FSDs and their designees at the eight airports we visited to 

determine the tools they use to respond to increases in passenger wait 

times and throughput.

To determine how TSA shares information with stakeholders about airport 

staffing and related screening procedures, we reviewed TSA guidance 

that directs FSDs to share information with stakeholders and directs 

headquarters officials to facilitate daily conference calls with 

stakeholders.12 We also reviewed TSA documentation, such as agendas 

and attendance sheets, for meetings between FSDs and airport 

stakeholders held from October 2016 through March 2017 for the eight 

airports we visited to verify that the meetings took place. We selected this 

time period because the TSA guidance directing FSDs to meet with 

stakeholders became effective in October 2016. Additionally, we 

interviewed TSA headquarters officials and TSA airport-level officials 

such as FSDs and their designees at the eight airports we visited to 

determine how TSA shares information about staffing and related 

screening procedures at airports with stakeholders. The results from the 

airport-level interviews with TSA officials at these eight airports we visited 

cannot be generalized to all airports at which TSA has screeners, but 

provided insights on how FSDs and their designees share information 

with stakeholders at their respective airports during the time of our review.

To determine the views of selected stakeholders on TSA’s information 

sharing efforts, we interviewed airline and airport officials at the eight 

airports we visited, as well as TSOs at those locations, to obtain their 

perspectives on TSA efforts to share information consistent with the 

 12TSA, Internal Controls—Protocol for Facilitating Stakeholder Collaboration Meetings

(October 2016).TSA’s Office of Security Operations issued guidance in October 2016 

intended to ensure that FSDs share information with stakeholders. Among other things, 

the guidance requires FSDs to facilitate quarterly stakeholder meetings at airports. 
Page 6 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

Aviation Security Act and TSA guidance.13 For each of the eight airports 

we visited, we interviewed airport officials representing the airport 

authority that oversees airport operations and airline officials from the 

airline with the greatest number of passengers at the respective airport.14

The FSD or FSD designee selected the TSOs we interviewed during our 

site visits based on TSO schedule availability. Furthermore, we 

interviewed industry association officials from the American Association of 

Airport Executives (AAAE), Airports Council International-North America 

(ACI-NA), and Airlines for America to obtain their insights on both TSA’s 

headquarters and airport-level information sharing. We chose these 

industry associations because they work directly with TSA headquarterslevel officials and the associations’ members work directly with TSA 

airport-level officials such as FSDs and their designees.15 The results 

from the interviews with airline and airport officials at the eight airports we 

visited and the three industry associations cannot be generalized to all 

stakeholders, but provided insights on how these select stakeholders 

viewed TSA’s information sharing efforts.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 13See Pub. L. No. 114-190, §§ 3302, 3305, 130 Stat. at 654-56; TSA, Internal Controls—

Protocol for Facilitating Stakeholder Collaboration Meetings (October 2016). The Aviation 

Security Act contains several information-sharing requirements for TSA. For example, 

section 3302(d) requires that the TSA Administrator share the staffing allocation model 

(currently known as the RAP) with aviation security stakeholders, such as air carriers, 

airport operators, and labor organizations representing TSOs. Furthermore, section 

3302(e) states that the TSA Administrator shall require each FSD to engage on a regular 

basis with the appropriate aviation security stakeholders to exchange information 

regarding airport operations, including security operations. As previously noted, the TSA 

guidance requires FSDs to facilitate quarterly stakeholder meetings at airports.

14At two of the eight airports, due to scheduling conflicts, we interviewed officials from the 

airline with the second and third greatest number of passengers at those airports. 

15AAAE represents airport executives from over 850 commercial and general aviation 

airports. ACI-NA represents 236 airport owners and operators that enplane more than 95 

percent of the domestic and nearly all the international airline passenger and cargo traffic 

in North America. Airlines for America represents nine U.S airlines and one Canadian 

airline that transport passenger and cargo traffic. 
Page 7 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

At TSA headquarters, the Office of Security Operations (OSO) has 

primary responsibility for operation of the RAP and allocation of TSOs 

across airports. Within OSO, the Staffing and Scheduling Division 

oversees the RAP. To allocate staff to the nearly 440 TSA-regulated 

airports in the United States, OSO is to use a combination of computerbased modeling and line-item adjustments based on airport-specific 

information.16 First, the agency is to work with a contractor to evaluate the 

assumptions—such as rates of expedited screening17—used by the 

computer-based staffing allocation model (model) to determine the 

optimal number of TSOs at each airport based on airport size and 

configuration, flight schedules, and the time it takes to perform checkpoint 

and baggage screening tasks.18 Second, after the model has determined 

how many TSOs are required for each airport, headquarters-level staff 

are to make line item adjustments to account for factors such as 

differences in staff availability and training needs that affect each airport. 

Figure 1 below provides additional details regarding TSA’s process to 

determine the number of TSOs at airports.

 16According to TSA headquarters officials, the agency uses the RAP to determine how 

many staff hours are required to adequately staff baggage and passenger screening 

operations at the 21 SPP airports in the United States operated by private sector 

companies. TSA allocates staff hours to SPP airports based on what TSA anticipates the 

cost would be to maintain a staff of TSOs at those airports. The private companies that 

operate the SPP airports control the hiring, scheduling and allocation of staff at these 

airports, although they are required to follow the same TSA standard operating 

procedures applicable to TSOs and other TSA employees.

17Expedited screening is a process that TSA uses to assess a passenger’s risk to aviation 

security prior to the passenger arriving at an airport checkpoint.

18TSA’s computer-based staffing model is a proprietary software application that uses 

simulations to determine each airport’s work requirement based on the airport’s unique 

operating characteristics, such as layout, equipment, and flight data. The software 

simulates passenger and baggage screening operations to produce required staffing 

levels. 

Background

TSA Processes for 

Allocating TSOs across 

Airports
Page 8 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

Figure 1: Transportation Security Administration’s Process for Determining Transportation Security Officers Allocations at 

Airports

As previously discussed, in 2007, we recommended that TSA establish a 

mechanism to periodically assess the assumptions in the RAP (prior to 

fiscal year 2017, known as the Staffing Allocation Model) to ensure that 

staffing allocations accurately reflect operating conditions that may 

change over time. TSA implemented this recommendation by developing 

an evaluation plan for regularly assessing the assumptions used in the 

staffing model. Assumptions include the number of passengers or bags 

that can be screened each hour by TSA equipment and the time TSOs 

require to operate discrete sections of the screening process, such as 

conducting pat-downs or searches of passengers’ carry-on baggage. The 

evaluation plan states that TSA is to assess (1) the time it takes to screen 

passengers using TSA equipment and (2) the number of staff needed to 

operate the equipment. Results from these assessments are to inform the 

assumptions used in the model to determine the base allocation of TSOs 

to U.S. airports.

TSA uses the evaluation plan as well as airport-level characteristics to 

systematically evaluate the assumptions used in the model on a regular 

basis:

• Evaluation plan: TSA’s evaluation plan recommends evaluating the 

time it takes to perform 19 aspects of passenger and checked 

TSA’s Process for 

Evaluating Information 

Used in the RAP
Page 9 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

baggage screening processes at least every two years19 and includes 

detailed procedures for doing so. For instance, the evaluation of 

passenger screening processes involves observing operations at 

selected airports to determine the average time it takes for one 

passenger to remove items of clothing and prepare his or her 

belongings for screening.20 Similarly, the evaluation determines how 

many passengers can be processed each hour during selected 

aspects of screening, such as by travel document checkers or via 

advanced imaging technology (AIT), often referred to as body 

scanners.

• Individual airport characteristics: Each year, TSA airport-level staff, 

such as FSDs or their designees, are to review the information in the 

model to ensure that information on the number of checkpoints and 

each checkpoint configuration and the number of flights departing the 

airport each day is accurate.

 19The evaluation plan specifies that elements of the passenger and baggage screening 

processes are to be evaluated at least every other year. For example, checked baggage 

and passenger screening processes are to be evaluated quarterly. The timeframes during 

which passengers usually arrive at the checkpoint and the work required to screen 

individuals not included in flight data, such as airline and airport employees who pass 

through checkpoints, are to be evaluated at least every other year.

20According to the evaluation plan, TSA and the contractor conduct the evaluation at 

selected airports with a mix of standard and expedited passenger screening lanes and 

equipment types. TSA officials told us they also select some airports that have had 

previous evaluations, for comparison purposes; some airports that have not undergone 

evaluations in the past; and at least one airport that has had a change in airline 

operations, such as a new airline in operation.
Page 10 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

At the airport level, FSDs and their designees are responsible for 

overseeing TSA security activities, including passenger and checked 

baggage screening.21 TSOs at airports follow standard operating 

procedures that guide screening processes and utilize technology such 

as AITs or walk through metal detectors (WTMD) to screen passengers 

and their accessible property.22 TSOs also inspect checked baggage to 

deter, detect, and prevent the carriage of any unauthorized explosive, 

incendiary, or weapon onboard an aircraft.23 Checked baggage screening 

is conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures and 

generally is accomplished through the use of explosives detection 

systems or explosives trace detection systems.24 TSA employs an 

expedited screening program, known as TSA Pre® that assesses 

passenger risk to aviation security prior to their arrival at an airport 

checkpoint. According to TSA, expedited screening involves a relatively 

more efficient and convenient screening process for individuals from 

whom TSA has obtained sufficient information to determine them to be of 

lower risk and thus undergo an expedited screening process, compared 

to the standard screening process a traveler may undergo, for whom TSA 

does not have such information in advance.

Finally, at each airport, TSA is to collect throughput data on the number of 

passengers screened under both expedited and standard screening and 

monitor passenger wait times at screening checkpoints. TSA airport 

officials are to submit passenger throughput and wait time data on a daily 

 21TSA airports are divided into seven geographic regions, with a regional director 

overseeing FSDs within each region. Each region has airports that TSA classifies into one 

of five security risk categories (X, I, II, III, IV) based on various factors, such as the total 

number of takeoffs and landings annually, and other special security considerations. In 

general, category X airports have the largest number of passenger boardings and 

category IV airports have the smallest. 

22At select airports, TSA uses passenger screening canines—trained to detect explosives 

on passengers—to expedite the screening process during periods of increased passenger 

volume. At 21 of the nation’s nearly 440 TSA-regulated airports, screening personnel 

employed by qualified private screening companies under contract with TSA as part of 

TSA’s SPP, and not TSOs, carry out passenger and checked baggage screening 

operations. See 49 U.S.C § 44920. TSA oversees screening operations at SPP airports 

and requires that such operations at SPP airports adhere to the same standard operating 

procedures and other requirements that apply to screening operations at airports for which 

TSOs perform the screening functions. 

23See generally 49 U.S.C § 44901; see also 49 C.F.R. § 1544.203.

24See 49 U.S.C § 44901(d)-(e).

TSA Processes for 

Conducting Passenger 

and Checked Baggage 

Screening, and Collecting 

Wait Time Data at Airports
Page 11 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

basis to OSO’s Performance Management Division at TSA headquarters, 

which compiles the data through the Performance Measurement 

Information System (PMIS), TSA’s web-based data collection system.

TSA’s OSO and the Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement 

(OSPIE) are both responsible for sharing information with stakeholders 

about airport operations. In response to the Aviation Security Act, OSO 

issued guidance in October 2016 intended to ensure that FSDs share 

information with stakeholders.25 OSPIE communicates TSA information 

about airport operations, such as how TSOs are allocated across airports, 

to stakeholders.

 25TSA, Internal Controls—Protocol for Facilitating Stakeholder Collaboration Meetings

(October 2016). Among other things, the guidance requires FSDs to facilitate quarterly 

stakeholder meetings at airports to discuss TSA’s RAP methodology, the number of TSA 

staff allocated to the airports, FSD’s plans to address airport security operation issues and 

best practices related to stakeholders, checkpoint, and checked baggage with 

stakeholders. The guidance also pointed FSDs to online resources developed by TSA 

headquarters intended to assist FSDs with sharing information about the RAP and airport 

security operations with the stakeholders. 

TSA Offices Responsible 

for Sharing Information 

with Stakeholders about 

Airport Operations
Page 12 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

In fiscal years 2016 and 2017, TSA modified the assumptions used in its 

model, as needed, to reflect changes identified through annual 

evaluations performed by a contractor.26 The contractor is specifically 

tasked with evaluating the assumptions related to the time needed to 

screen passengers and their baggage. For example, TSA officials stated 

that they increased the expected time needed to screen passengers for 

one type of passenger screening equipment in fiscal year 2017 because 

the contractor found that the actual time needed was more than the 

assumption TSA used in fiscal year 2016.27 Similarly, in fiscal year 2016, 

TSA allocated fewer staff to review images of checked baggage, 

compared to previous years, because the contractor’s evaluation 

determined it took TSOs less time to review the images than the time 

observed in previous years.

In addition to modifying its model based on evaluations performed by 

contractors, TSA officials at the headquarters level review and modify 

other assumptions in the model to ensure they are accurate. For 

example, prompted by the long waits in the spring of 2016, officials stated 

that they modified the model for the 2017 fiscal year based on their 

evaluation of the 2016 assumptions. Specifically, TSA assumed that 50 

percent of airline passengers would use expedited screening in 2016, but 

 26In addition to annual reviews of assumptions, in fiscal year 2016, TSA hired an 

additional contractor to identify ways to improve airline passenger experiences while 

addressing security threats. The assessment noted that TSA was following industry best 

practices by using the same process used by the airline industry to create annual staffing 

allocation plans. The contractor provided briefing slides in October 2016. 

27The average observed number of passengers that could be processed in an hour 

decreased in 2016 for one type of X-ray equipment compared to the average observed 

number in 2015.

TSA Modifies Its 

Staffing Assumptions 

and Relies on Airport 

Information to Tailor 

TSO Staffing Levels 

to Individual Airports

TSA Modifies Its Staffing 

Assumptions as Needed 

Based on Contractor and 

TSA Officials’ Evaluations 

and Passenger 

Throughput Forecasts
Page 13 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

only an average of 27 percent of passengers used expedited screening 

that year. According to the officials, TSA modified this assumption in fiscal 

year 2017 and now uses TSA Pre® Program data specific to each 

individual airport in the model. Similarly, officials told us that, since TSA 

was established in November 2001, many employees will reach 15 years 

of service with the federal government in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, 

resulting in increased annual leave allowances. In response, officials 

have increased the amount of annual leave they expect employees to use 

and rely on airport-specific data regarding employee tenure to estimate 

annual leave for the coming year.

TSA has also modified the way it develops assumptions regarding 

passenger throughput at each airport. For example, beginning in fiscal 

year 2016, TSA used passenger throughput forecasts to allocate staff 

commensurate with the expected rate of increase in passenger 

throughput at each airport. The estimated increase in passenger 

throughput for each fiscal year is based primarily on national and airportlevel data from the previous 3 months from PMIS, TSA’s web-based data 

collection system, and flight forecast data from the airline industry, as well 

as additional input from other sources.28 Prior to fiscal year 2016, TSA 

planned for passenger throughput during the busiest 28 days from the 

previous fiscal year and did not adjust the assumption for the annual 

increase in passenger throughput, which increased two percent in 2014 

and four percent in 2015. A TSA headquarters official responsible for 

overseeing the RAP stated that the agency compared projected 

passenger throughput to actual passenger throughput for fiscal year 2017 

to determine the accuracy of the projections and concluded that no 

significant changes to the method of forecasting were necessary for fiscal 

year 2018.

 28To develop a forecast for each fiscal year, TSA headquarters officials stated that they 

assign a weight to five sources of information based on their relevance to TSA operations. 

The forecast relies most heavily on airport-level PMIS data and flight forecast data from 

OAG (not an acronym), a company that analyzes and provides flight information and 

forecasts to the airline industry, among others. The forecast also includes data from the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

For instance, the forecast uses data from BTS, but TSA officials stated that the BTS data 

is given less weight in the forecast because it is less current than the other sources of 

data available. Similarly, the FAA publishes a forecast of national-level passenger airline 

boardings (referred to as enplanements), which is included in the forecast but not 

weighted heavily because it is not airport-specific.
Page 14 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

According to TSA officials, each airport in the United States has unique 

characteristics that make it difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to 

staffing security operations. For instance, officials told us that some 

airports are allocated additional staff to account for the time needed to 

transport TSOs to off-site training facilities.29 Because the staffing 

allocation resulting from TSA’s model does not reflect the full range of 

operating conditions at individual airports, TSA headquarters officials use 

airport-specific information to further adjust allocations by changing 

individual line items within the allocation after running the model on both 

an annual and an ad hoc basis. TSA headquarters officials stated that 

they have developed methodologies for making standard line item 

adjustments such as training requirements, overtime, and annual and sick 

leave.30 Officials told us they review the methodologies each year and 

use their professional judgement to modify the methodologies to account 

for changes in airport needs as well as budget constraints. We found that 

through its process of tailoring staffing allocations to individual airports’ 

needs, TSA is able to respond to the circumstances at each individual 

airport.

TSA headquarters officials also use airport-specific data on staff 

availability, training needs, supervisory needs, and additional security 

layers to manually adjust the model’s staffing allocation output at a line 

item level. For instance, headquarters officials use the previous years’ 

data on staff sick leave for each airport to evaluate whether they are 

allocating the appropriate amount of sick leave to their staff allocations on 

an individual airport basis. According to TSA headquarters officials, sick 

leave use can vary by airport and region of the country. Similarly, officials 

stated that they adjust the model’s output to account for individual airport 

staff’s training needs so that each airport’s staff can meet TSA’s annual 

training requirements.

In addition, according to TSA officials at both the headquarters and airport 

levels, airport-level officials can request exceptions—modifications to their 

 29TSA officials told us that although many airports have training space available on-site, at 

some airports, TSOs have to travel to an off-site location to access training facilities. 

30TSA officials use a different methodology for each line item adjustment. For instance, 

officials allocate supervisory TSOs to large airports based on the number of checkpoints 

and checked baggage rooms in that airport, and the number of shifts worked each day. 

Smaller airports are allocated supervisory TSOs based on the number of staff or the 

number of operating hours.

TSA Uses Airport-Level 

Information to Tailor 

Staffing Levels to 

Individual Airport Needs 

Using Line Item 

Adjustments
Page 15 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

staffing allocation—based on unusual airport conditions that are difficult to 

address, such as problematic checkpoint configurations or lack of space 

for security operations. For instance, officials at one airport said that they 

had been granted exceptions for one checkpoint because pillars and 

curves within the checkpoint prevented the lanes in the checkpoint from 

screening passengers at the rate assumed by the model. TSA officials at 

the headquarters level review requests for exceptions and use their 

professional judgement to determine whether the exception will be 

granted.

Finally, in some cases, TSA may adjust an airport’s staffing allocation 

outside of the annual staffing allocation process and may do so as the 

result of significant and unforeseen changes in airport operations. For 

instance, TSA officials stated that one airport was allocated additional 

staff for the remainder of the fiscal year when the airport opened a new 

terminal mid-year so that the additional checkpoints could be properly 

staffed. Officials at another airport we visited said that they had been 

allocated additional staff when an airline extended its operational hours to 

ensure appropriate staffing for the additional hours of operation.
Page 16 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

TSA collects passenger wait time and throughput data and uses those 

data to monitor daily operations at airports. TSA’s Operations Directive 

(directive), Reporting Customer Throughput and Wait Times, provides 

instructions for collecting and reporting wait time and passenger 

throughput data for TSA screening lanes.31 Regarding wait time data, 

according to the directive, FSDs or their designees at all Category X, I, 

and II airports32 must measure wait times every operational hour in all 

TSA expedited and standard screening lanes. The directive requires wait 

times to be measured in actual time, using a verifiable system such as 

wait time cards, closed circuit television monitoring, or another 

confirmable method.33 The directive indicates that wait times should be 

measured from the end of the line in which passengers are waiting to the 

 31TSA, Operations Directive, OD-400-50-1-5F: Reporting Customer Throughput and Wait 

Times (December 1, 2016). The wait time and throughput reporting requirements also 

apply to the 21 airports participating in TSA’s SPP. 

32TSA classifies airports into one of five security risk categories (X, I, II, III, IV) based on 

various factors, such as the total number of takeoffs and landings annually, and other 

special security considerations. In general, category X airports have the largest number of 

passenger boardings and category IV airports have the smallest.

33According to TSA officials, at the beginning of each hour, wait time cards are handed to 

passengers at the end of the checkpoint line and are collected when a passenger reaches 

the WTMD or AIT unit. Closed circuit television is monitored from a location other than the 

checkpoint, such as at the airport’s coordination center.

TSA Uses Data to 

Monitor Airport 

Operations and 

Respond to Increases 

in Passenger Wait 

Times and 

Throughput

TSA Uses Passenger Wait 

Time and Throughput Data 

to Monitor Airport 

Operations on a Daily 

Basis
Page 17 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

WTMD or AIT units.34 FSDs or their designees at Category III and IV 

airports35 may estimate wait times initially, but the directive requires them 

to measure actual wait times when wait times are estimated at 10 minutes 

or greater. The directive also requires FSDs or their designees to collect 

passenger throughput data directly from the WTMD and AIT units. 

According to TSA headquarters officials, the machines have sensors that 

collect the number of passengers that pass through each hour, and TSOs 

retrieve the data directly from the units. All airports regardless of category 

are required to enter their wait time and throughput data daily into PMIS, 

TSA’s web-based data entry program, no later than 3:30 AM Eastern 

Time of the next calendar day so that the data can be included in the 

morning’s Daily Leadership Report (discussed in more detail below).

To monitor operations for all airports, TSA compiles a daily report utilizing 

a variety of PMIS data points, including wait time and throughput data.36

The Office of Security Operations’ Performance Management Division 

disseminates the Daily Leadership Report to TSA officials, including 

regional directors and FSDs and their designees every morning detailing 

the previous day’s wait times and throughput figures, among other data 

points. The Performance Management Division includes a quality 

assurance addendum with each Daily Leadership Report, indicating 

missing or incorrect data, to include wait time and throughput data, and 

TSA has procedures in place intended to ensure officials at the airports 

correct the data in PMIS within 2 weeks.

In addition to the Daily Leadership Report, TSA utilizes wait time and 

throughput data to monitor airport operations at 28 airports in near real 

time. In May 2016, TSA established the Airport Operations Center (AOC) 

 34According to TSA headquarters officials, TSA does not require FSDs or their designees 

to collect a statistical sample of wait times throughout the hour, but rather requires that 

one wait time is collected for every operational hour in all screening lanes. If more than 

one wait time is collected during the hour, the directive indicates that the maximum wait 

time should be reported. TSA officials at airports we visited stated that TSOs return 

completed wait time cards to supervisors, who then enter the information into a shared 

spreadsheet and eventually into PMIS. Each hour’s reported wait time is then applied to 

all of a lane’s throughput for that given hour.

35As previously stated, TSA classifies airports into one of five security risk categories (X, I, 

II, III, IV) and, in general, category X airports have the largest number of passenger 

boardings and category IV airports have the smallest.

36As mentioned above, Category III and IV airports only collect wait time data when they 

estimate the wait times to be longer than 10 minutes, so although the Daily Leadership 

Report will list Category III and IV airports, there may be days when no wait time data are

reported for these airports. 
Page 18 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

that conducts near real time monitoring of the operations of 28 airports 

that, according to TSA headquarters officials, represent the majority of 

passenger throughput nationwide or are operationally significant.37 TSA 

requires the 28 airports monitored by the AOC to enter passenger wait 

time data and throughput data into PMIS hourly (whereas the remaining 

airports are only required to submit data once daily, by 3:30 AM Eastern 

Time, as described above) so that AOC officials can monitor the 

operations in near real time. In addition, TSA officials at airports are 

required to report to the AOC when an event occurs—such as equipment 

malfunctions, weather-related events, or unusually high passenger 

throughput—that affects airport screening operations and results in wait 

times that are greater than TSA’s standards of 30 minutes in standard 

screening lanes or greater than 15 minutes in expedited screening 

lanes.38

If an airport is undergoing a period of prolonged wait times, the AOC 

coordinates with the Regional Director and the FSD to assist in deploying 

resources. For example, over the course of the summer of 2016, after 

certain airports experienced long wait times in the spring of 2016 as 

confirmed by our analysis, the AOC assisted in deploying additional 

passenger screening canines and TSOs to those airports that 

experienced longer wait times.39 The AOC disseminates a morning and 

evening situational report to TSA airport-level officials and airport 

 37When TSA established this center in May 2016, they referred to it as the Incident 

Command Center. TSA changed the name to the Airport Operations Center in October 

2016. 

38 In 2007, we reviewed TSA’s Staffing Allocation Model and reported that TSA had a 10 

minute wait time goal for passenger screening (GAO, Aviation Security: TSA’s Staffing 

Allocation Model Is Useful for Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its Assumptions Should 

Be Systematically Reassessed, GAO-07-299 (Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007)). 

According to TSA headquarters officials we interviewed during the course of this review 

and the TSA Administrator’s October 2015 testimony before the House Committee on 

Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security, TSA began prioritizing 

security effectiveness rather than speed in 2015, in response to concerns regarding 

security effectiveness following the completion of the September 2015 DHS Office of 

Inspector General Report on covert testing, which used undercover methods to test TSA 

operations.

39Our analysis confirmed that reported wait times increased in the spring of 2016 at 

selected airports, as mentioned by the media. For example, in May 2016, approximately 

22 percent of passengers at Chicago O’Hare International airport and 26 percent of 

passengers at Chicago Midway International airport waited over 30 minutes in standard 

screening as opposed to zero percent for both airports in May 2015, which accounted for 

the longest wait times in the spring of 2016. These two airports were part of the 28 airports 

for which we analyzed wait time data for the period of January 2015 through May 2017.
Page 19 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

stakeholders summarizing nationwide wait times, highlighting wait times 

at the top airports and any hot spots (unexpected passenger volume or 

other operational challenges) that may have occurred since the most 

recent report was issued. In addition to the near real time monitoring of 

the 28 airports, the AOC also monitors operations at all other airports and 

disseminates information to airports and stakeholders as needed.

To determine the extent to which TSA exceeded its wait time standards, 

we analyzed wait time data for the 28 airports monitored by the AOC for 

the period of January 2015 through May 2017 for both standard and 

expedited screening. Our analysis shows that TSA met its wait time 

standard of less than 30 minutes in standard screening at the 28 AOC 

airports 99.3 percent of the time for the period of January 2015 through 

May 2017. For expedited screening for the same time period at the same 

airports, we found that 100 percent of the time passengers were reported 

to have waited 19 minutes or less.40 Additionally, our analysis confirmed 

that the percentage of passengers in standard screening waiting over 30 

minutes increased in 2016 during the months of March, April, and May as 

compared to 2015 at all 28 airports monitored by the AOC.

FSDs and their staff at the airports we visited identified a variety of tools 

that they utilize to respond to increases in passenger wait times and/or 

throughput.

• TSOs from the National Deployment Force (NDF)—teams of 

additional TSOs—are available for deployment to airports to support 

screening operations during major events and seasonal increases in 

passengers.41 For example, TSA officials at one airport we visited 

received NDF officers during busy holiday seasons and officials at 

another airport received officers during the increase in wait times in 

the spring and summer of 2016.

 40Although the TSA standard for expedited screening is 15 minutes, TSA does not 

routinely report the data this way. For expedited screening, TSA provided wait time data 

in increments of 0-4 minutes; 5-9 minutes; 10-19 minutes; and 20 minutes or more and we 

analyzed the data in these same increments. These are the similar increments that TSA 

uses to prepare its Daily Leadership Report.

41TSA’s NDF officers support airport screening operations during emergencies, seasonal 

demands, severe weather conditions, or increased passenger activity requiring additional 

screening personnel above those normally available. 

TSA Airport Officials Use a 

Variety of Tools to 

Respond to Increases in 

Passenger Wait Times and 

Throughput
Page 20 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

• TSA officials at select airports use passenger screening canines to 

expedite the screening process and support screening operations 

during increased passenger throughput and wait time periods.42 For

example, TSA officials at one airport we visited emphasized the 

importance of passenger screening canines as a useful tool to 

minimize wait times and meet passenger screening demands at times 

when throughput is high. Officials at another airport we visited rely on 

these canines in busy terminals during peak periods. According to 

officials at two of the airports we visited, the use of passenger 

screening canines helped them to reduce wait times due to increased 

passenger volumes in the spring and summer of 2016.

• TSA officials at airports also utilize part-time TSOs and overtime 

hours to accommodate increases in passenger throughput and wait 

times. For example, according to officials at all eight of the airports we 

visited, they use overtime during peak travel times, such as during 

holiday travel seasons, and officials usually plan the use of overtime 

in advance. Additionally, TSA officials at four of the airports we visited 

told us they use part-time TSOs to help manage peak throughput 

times throughout the day.

• According to TSA officials at two of the airports we visited, they move 

TSOs between checkpoints to accommodate increases in passenger 

throughput at certain checkpoints and to expedite screening 

operations. For example, TSA officials at one airport we visited have a 

team of TSOs that terminal managers can request on short notice. 

Officials at the other airport estimated that they move TSOs between 

terminals about 40 times per day.

 42Passenger screening canine teams consist of a canine trained to detect explosives on 

passengers and a handler. Airports at which passenger screening canines are used can 

achieve a reduction in passenger wait times through broader use of expedited screening. 

Passenger screening canines are allocated to airports through a risk-based model, with 

airports with higher passenger throughput rates, among other factors, receiving more 

canines.
Page 21 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

TSA headquarters has taken steps intended to improve information 

sharing with stakeholders about staffing and related screening 

procedures at airports. For example, TSA officials hold daily conference 

calls with industry association, airline, and airport officials at the 28 

airports monitored by the AOC.43 According to TSA headquarters officials, 

TSA established the daily conference call as a mechanism intended to 

ensure timely communication with stakeholders and to help identify and 

address challenges in airport operations such as increases in passenger 

wait times. Also, TSA headquarters officials stated that they conducted a 

series of presentations and meetings with industry, airline, and airport 

officials to discuss TSA’s RAP, security enhancements at airports, and 

airport screening processes, among other things. For example, TSA’s 

headquarters officials shared information about the fiscal year 2017 RAP 

in October 2016 during a briefing at an industry conference and a meeting 

with airline representatives, airline engineers, and Federal Aviation 

Administration officials. Additionally, TSA headquarters officials facilitated 

a stakeholder meeting in May 2017 to discuss planned improvements for 

the TSA Pre® Program and met with stakeholders in June 2017 to 

discuss security enhancements and changes to screening procedures for 

carry-on baggage.

 43In addition to TSA’s Airport Operations Center officials, TSA’s Office of Security Policy 

and Industry Engagement (OSPIE) officials participate in the daily conference calls. 

OSPIE is responsible for developing security policies and plans that reduce the risk of 

terrorist attacks.

TSA Has Taken Steps 

to Improve 

Information Sharing 

with Stakeholders 

and Most 

Stakeholders We 

Interviewed Reported 

Improved Satisfaction

TSA Improved Information 

Sharing with Stakeholders 

through Daily Conference 

Calls, Presentations, and 

Meetings
Page 22 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

In addition to headquarters-level initiatives, at the eight airports we 

visited, we found that FSDs shared information with airport and airline 

officials by meeting on an ongoing basis to discuss TSA staffing and 

related screening procedures. For example, according to the FSDs and 

airline and airport officials at all eight airports we visited, FSDs met with 

stakeholders on a daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis. During these 

meetings, FSDs and airline and airport officials told us that FSDs 

discussed TSO staffing levels at the airports, instances when passenger 

screening wait times were long at security checkpoints, and TSA 

screening equipment performance, among other things.

Stakeholders told us that TSA headquarters officials and most FSDs 

improved information sharing since fiscal year 2016. With regard to TSA 

headquarters officials’ information sharing efforts, officials from all three 

industry associations we interviewed stated that, since fiscal year 2016, 

TSA headquarters improved information sharing with their association 

member companies and attributed that improvement, in part, to the daily 

conference call between TSA and stakeholders.44 For example, officials 

from one industry association stated that the calls benefited members by 

facilitating collaboration with TSA to more quickly identify and address 

problems, such as malfunctioning screening equipment, before the 

problems negatively affected passengers. An official from another 

industry association told us that the daily conference call improved 

communication substantially between TSA and the organization by 

providing a regular opportunity to discuss airport security issues and 

TSA’s plans to resolve those issues.

Additionally, stakeholders we interviewed generally reported positive 

relationships or improved information sharing with FSDs, but also noted 

differences in the type and extent of information that FSDs shared. For 

example, officials at seven of eight airlines and all eight airports we visited 

stated that they have positive relationships with their FSDs and that their 

FSDs were accessible and available when needed, while the remaining 

airline official noted improving access to information. Furthermore, 

officials from all three industry associations cited improved information 

sharing between their members at airports and FSDs since fiscal year 

 44We interviewed industry association officials to provide insight on both TSA’s 

headquarters and airport level information sharing because industry association officials 

typically work directly with TSA headquarters-level officials while their members work 

directly with TSA airport-level officials, such as FSDs and their designees. 

Stakeholders Reported 

Improved Satisfaction with 

TSA Headquarters 

Information Sharing Efforts 

and with Most FSDs
Page 23 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

2016, but officials from two association noted that some FSDs still do not 

regularly share information, such as changes in the number of TSOs 

staffed at individual airports. According to TSA headquarters officials, 

stakeholders can elevate any problems they experience with FSDs 

sharing information to regional directors who are responsible for ensuring 

that FSDs engage regularly with stakeholders.

We provided a draft of this product to DHS for comment. We received 

technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 24 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Administrator of TSA and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix I.

Jennifer A. Grover 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 25 GAO-18-236 Aviation Security

Jennifer A. Grover, (202) 512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Ellen Wolfe, Assistant Director; 

Joel Aldape, David Alexander, Chuck Bausell, David Beardwood, Wendy 

Dye, Miriam Hill, Susan Hsu, Thomas Lombardi, Kevin Newak, Heidi 

Nielson, and Natalie Swabb made significant contributions to this report.

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

GAO Staff and 

Acknowlegements

(101075)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.