Review of TSA Non-Screener 

Administrative Positions 

Office of Inspector General 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Inspections 

OIG-06-65 September 2006
 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528

September 26, 2006 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our 

oversight responsibility to promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the department. 

This report evaluates the TSA non-screening administrative staffing issue. It is based on interviews 

with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, quantitative 

analysis, and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and 

have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this 

report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our 

appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

 

 

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
Table of Contents 

 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 

Background.......................................................................................................................................3 

Results of Review ............................................................................................................................4 

TSA Needs to Conduct a Workforce Analysis..................................................................................4 

Relative Comparison Revealed Under and Overstaffed Airports .....................................................5 

Hub-Spoke Realignment and Reallocation Plan Streamlines Staffing Levels................................10 

Screeners Perform a Substantial Amount of Administrative Work ................................................15 

Screening Managers Earn Less Than $100,000 Annually ..............................................................17 

FSD Administrative Staff Regularly Perform Other Duties As Assigned ......................................18 

Recommendations.........................................................................................................................19 

Management Comments and OIG Evaluation...................................................................20

Appendices 

 

 Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology .......................................................................23 

 Appendix B: Management Response to Draft Report ...............................................................25 

 Appendix C: Chairman Mica’s Letter to TSA...........................................................................29 

 Appendix D: TSA’s Response to Chairman Mica’s Letter........................................................32 

 Appendix E: Pay Band, Number, and Average Salary of FSD Administrative Staff ...............34 

 Appendix F: Map of the Western Area .....................................................................................35 

 Appendix G: Position Descriptions............................................................................................36 

 Appendix H: Major Contributors to This Report.......................................................................44 

 Appendix I: Report Distribution...............................................................................................45 
Table of Contents 

 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions

Abbreviations 

 AAAE American Association of Airport Executives 

 AFSD Assistant Federal Security Director 

 DFSD Deputy Federal Security Director 

 DHS Department of Homeland Security 

 FSD Federal Security Director 

 FTE Full Time Equivalent 

 NFC National Finance Center 

 OIG Office of Inspector General 

 PP5 Pilot Program 

 SSP Screening Partnership Program 

 TSA Transportation Security Administration 
OIG

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 1 

Executive Summary 

On July 6, 2005, Congressman John Mica, Chairman, House Aviation 

Subcommittee wrote the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 

and the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on 

Homeland Security, to request immediate and appropriate legislative or 

administrative action to reduce or place a cap on Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) non-screener administrative staffing positions at 

airports around the country (see Appendix C). Federal Security Directors 

(FSD) have significant responsibilities as the highest-ranking federal officials 

in charge of day-to-day direction of airport security staff and operations. 

Their administrative staff of 1,850 employees supports a passenger and 

baggage-screening workforce of 47,037 screeners. The Chairman raised 

concerns that the administrative staff are top-heavy and underutilized at 

several airports, and include overpaid supervisory screeners. The Chairman 

also requested that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) review these issues. 

We could not answer completely the Chairman’s questions. The initial 

staffing plan adopted by TSA resulted in significant variations in staffing 

among airports. Some airports were understaffed while others were 

overstaffed. However, there are classification issues that preclude a firm 

conclusion. TSA excludes from its count of administrative staff those workers 

in non-screener positions with responsibilities for other FSD functions, such 

as law enforcement, cargo inspection, legal counsel, and regulatory 

compliance. In addition, TSA often enlists screeners to perform 

administrative duties; some are tied to screener administration, but some are 

used to fulfill TSA or FSD administrative needs. Available timekeeping 

records do not permit a separation of the costs or associated FTEs into the two 

usages, so it is not possible to determine the full extent of FSD administrative 

activity. We were told that, to a lesser degree, FSD administrative staff also 

was employed upon occasion to fill screener administrative needs. Thus, it is 

not possible to determine how much administrative workforce TSA now uses, 

and thereby to assess whether TSA uses too much or needs more. What was 

clearer was that TSA’s initial staffing actions lacked coherency and resulted in 

some cases in significant disparities in staffing at airports. 
OIG

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 2 

In July 2005, TSA completed a Hub-Spoke Realignment and Reallocation 

Plan. The plan will alter the operational relationships of FSD offices at 

various airports, creating principal (Hub) and dependent (Spoke) airports, and 

provide better symmetry among FSD staffing patterns when analyzed 

according to category of airport, number of screeners, and number of 

administrative positions. TSA expects to complete implementing the plan by 

September 30, 2006 but has not received the funding for the additional 139 

positions they say they require. 

Staffing under the old allocations should be realigned and the new plan 

appears to provide better solutions. However, we do not have a confident 

basis upon which to recommend that TSA should reduce, cap, or increase its 

FSD administrative staff without better data. Even TSA’s proposed plan does 

not answer the question of whether it needs more or could get by with fewer 

administrative positions. It is only a more uniform allocation of the number of 

positions stated. TSA has never determined the precise number of FSD 

administrative positions it needs. Consequently, our recommendations first 

propose that TSA conduct and complete such an analysis. In the meantime, 

we would not recommend a cap or limit on TSA’s administrative positions. 

This opinion is based on interviews we conducted in which TSA employees in 

the field affirmed the existence of administrative shortages and in which we 

learned of the recurring diversion of screeners for administrative work. TSA 

may also reap economies as administrative functions are consolidated in its 

new Hub-Spoke arrangement and as a result of its proposed transition to a 

reportedly more efficient payroll system. So, we are not confident that the 

data or available information can support a specific FTE limitation. 

We are recommending that, before TSA takes any further action regarding 

FSD non-screener staffing levels, the Assistant Secretary, TSA: (1) conduct a 

workforce analysis of FSD non-screener staff and develop a staffing model to 

identify the number of employees actually needed at airports; (2) review 

proposed adjustments to FSD staffing levels and ratios of administrative to 

screener personnel; (3) continue to study technologies or systems that will 

automate data entry functions at airports; and (4) reclassify administrative 

positions using more inclusive position titles to incorporate more of the 

functions employees perform and facilitate the hiring of administrative 

personnel.
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 3 

Background 

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, TSA 

was established after Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act (P. L. 107-71, § 101, 115 Stat. 597 (2001)). Part of TSA’s 

mission is to protect the nation’s air transportation system through passenger 

and baggage screening. With a workforce of 47,037 screeners, TSA screens 

more than 250 million pieces of checked baggage and carry-on passenger 

baggage annually at the nation’s 429 commercial airports. FSDs oversee TSA 

activities at the airports. There are 1,850 FSD employees nationwide.1

 They 

perform a myriad of functions, most in direct support of screening operations, 

including payroll, budget, personnel, customer service, screening training, 

scheduling, and clerical. FSD staff also support TSA’s 1,000 regulatory 

inspectors and 300 law enforcement personnel who work in airports around 

the country. FSD administrative staffs vary in their composition. In addition 

to the FSD, they include positions such as Deputy FSD (DFSD), 

Administrative Officer, Human Resources Specialist, Financial Specialist, 

Stakeholder Liaison, Customer Service Manager, and Secretary (see Appendix 

E). 

In November 2002, TSA allocated the number and type of FSD administrative 

positions according to airport categorization. TSA categorizes airports based 

on size, geographical location, geo-political circumstances, and enplanements 

(the boarding of a commercial aircraft by a passenger).2 Generally, the larger 

airports were authorized to hire more staff. For example, Category X and 

Large Category I airports were authorized to have 16 FSD administrative staff 

positions, while Medium Category II and Large Category III hubs were 

authorized to fill 10 positions. 

In July 2005, TSA began moving to a new realigned hub and spoke statewide 

system and the process was completed in November 2005. The purpose of the 

hub and spoke system is to make more efficient and economic use of 

administrative and screening resources. Under the system, hub airports will 

 

1

 References to “FSD staff” relate to the number of authorized support positions assigned to the FSD. It does not include 

the number of screeners, regulatory inspectors, or law enforcement personnel assigned to the airport, or to screeners who 

are assigned to the FSD.

2

 Examples of different categories of airports are as follows: Los Angeles and John F. Kennedy are Category X airports; 

New Orleans and Pittsburgh are Category I airports; Lubbock and Savannah are Category II airports; Duluth and Erie are 

Category III airports; and Tupelo and Morgantown are Category IV airports. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 4 

provide the administrative support for multiple smaller airport spokes. TSA is 

planning to realign several hundred FSD administrative positions such that 

large category airports will gain positions while smaller airports will forfeit 

some positions. However, due to a lack of funding for fiscal year 2006 and a 

hiring freeze TSA instituted on September 12, 2005, the transfer or hiring of 

personnel under the realignment plan was put on hold.3 

Congress has funded fewer positions each of the last four years than TSA 

requested (see Table 1). 

Table 1: Budget Request and Funding for FSD Administrative Positions 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Requested 2,632 Not available* 2,500 2,500 

Funded** 2,133 1,943 1,850 1,801 

* TSA was unable to provide us with the data at the time of writing this report. 

** Chief Financial Office reported funded positions were 1,898 for 2004 and 1,892 for 2005.

Results of Review 

TSA Needs to Conduct a Workforce Analysis 

After its creation in 2002, TSA responded quickly to establish its security 

operations at airports. It hired and deployed FSDs and administrative support 

to oversee these operations. Lacking any useful historical or analogous data, 

TSA never precisely determined how many administrative positions were 

needed to support the screener staff. Using a subjective, consensus-driven 

approach, TSA estimated how many resources it needed and allocated a 

certain number of administrative positions to each FSD, based on their 

respective airport category. In November 2002, TSA developed its first 

staffing chart for airports, which called for 2,632 positions (see Table 2). 

 

3

 The Office of Security Operations developed a formal waiver process to allow movement of people within an airport 

system or in emergency cases (for example, after Hurricane Katrina struck the south coast, some personnel were allowed 

to move out of New Orleans). 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 5 

 Table 2: Original FSD Staff Positions By Airport Category 

 

Cat X 

& 

Large 

Cat I 

TSES 

Large 

Cat I* 

Large 

Cat I 

& II 

Medium 

Cat I & 

Large 

Cat II, & 

III Hubs 

Medium 

Cat II & 

Large 

Cat III 

Hubs 

Medium 

Cat III & 

Large 

Cat IV 

Hubs 

Cat II & 

III 

(250K+) 

Cat III & 

IV (50K+) 

Cat III 

& IV 

(<50K) Total 

Number of Airports 28 24 34 19 46 7 26 80 183 447 

Planned Positions per Airport 23 21 18 15 10 3 1 1 0 

Total Positions 644 504 612 285 460 21 26 80 0 2,632 

Authorized per Category 16 15 15 12 10 3 1 1 0 

Total Authorized 448 360 510 228 460 21 26 80 0 2,133 

 * Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES) Large Category I airports are headed by FSDs who hold 

 Senior Executive Service positions. 

Each FSD was entitled to hire according to his or her concept of the airport’s 

needs by choosing positions from a list provided by TSA. These materials did 

not set requirements for essential functions or recommended ratios of 

administrative support to screeners. TSA did not develop or use any formulabased model for its staffing decisions, and this resulted in many over or 

understaffed airports. 

In order for the administrative employees to effectively support the screener 

staff, TSA needs to know the number of administrative employees as well as 

the type of positions needed. It needs to conduct a workload analysis that 

accurately determines the number of support staff needed. This analysis 

should lead to a staffing model similar to the Screener Allocation Model, and 

reflect screener staffing allocations, the hub and spoke structure, and other 

relevant factors.4

 It should provide new information to help determine 

whether to reduce, cap, or increase administrative staff levels. 

Relative Comparison Revealed Under and Overstaffed Airports 

We reviewed how the original staffing chart translated into actual staffing 

levels at airports. To establish a reasonable basis for comparison, we 

identified current FSD staffing totals and combined the data according to 

TSA’s new hub and spoke structure. Specifically, we tallied FSD staff in each 

hub airport, and its assigned spokes, and compared those totals to other hub 

 

4 The Screener Allocation Model incorporates various complex assumptions about baggage staffing, checkpoint staffing, 

passenger arrival distributions, and baggage distributions to determine optimal levels of passenger and baggage screeners 

at airports. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 6 

and spoke areas, relative to the number of screeners and screening managers 

being supported. The data suggests that TSA’s original staffing chart led to 

inconsistent deployment of personnel. Staffing was not uniform, especially 

for airports within the same category. Several hub and spoke areas appeared 

to be over or understaffed (see Graph 1). 

 

Graph 1: Hub and Spoke Areas Plotted by FSD and Screener Staff 

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

42

45

48

51

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

Screener Staff

FSD Staff

Category

X

Category

I

Category

II

Category

III

Category

IV

It is important to point out that TSA does not count all airport positions as part 

of the FSD administrative staff. Although the Assistant Federal Security 

Director (AFSD)-Law Enforcement and the AFSD-Regulatory and 

Inspections are stationed at airports, TSA does not consider them to be part of 

the FSD administrative staff because their salaries are funded from separate 

budgets and not necessarily determined by the number of screener personnel.5

 

Attorneys are stationed at large airports, but they report to their supervisors at 

TSA headquarters. Additionally, TSA considers screening managers that 

supervise screeners to be part of the screener workforce. We agree that 

 

5

 The six different budget groups are: 1) FSD and Staff, 2) Screener, 3) Screening Manager, 4) Law Enforcement, 

5) Regulatory Inspectors, and 6) Air Cargo. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 7 

screening managers are not administrative positions. We counted screener 

managers as part of the screening staff because they directly supervise 

screeners (and lead screeners), and their duties are more similar to screeners. 

Their offices are collocated at the airports, and they are supported by the FSD 

administrative staff as screeners are. 

Using the number of screeners FSD staff support for comparison, several 

small and large hub and spoke areas illustrated the problem with the original 

staffing model. For example: 

• Hawaii’s airport structure is made up of its hub, Honolulu, and six 

spoke airports. Honolulu has a large FSD administrative staff 

compared to other airports that have a similar sized screener staff and 

spoke structure. Hawaii has a total of 51 FSD administrative staff 

members for 1,160 screeners, a ratio of one staff person to every 23 

screeners. Comparatively, Newark International Airport, a Category X 

airport with no hubs, appears understaffed. Including the FSD, there 

are 13 administrative staff to support 1,302 screeners, a ratio of one 

FSD staff person to every 100 screeners. 

• El Paso International Airport is a Category I airport with no spokes. 

There are a total of 13 FSD staff members for 129 screeners. With a 

ratio of 1:10, El Paso appears overstaffed compared to John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK), which appears equally 

understaffed. JFK is a Category X airport with no spokes. It has 16 

FSD staff members to 1,665 screeners, a ratio of 1:104. 

• Jacksonville International Airport is a Category I airport with three 

smaller spoke airports. There are 31 FSD staff members and 261 

screeners, a very low ratio of 1:8. On the other hand, Memphis 

International Airport, also a Category I airport, has one spoke but a 

total of 11 FSD staff members for 279 screeners, a ratio of 1:25. 

• O’Hare International Airport, a category X airport with one spoke, has 

41 FSD staff members and 1,621 screeners, or one staff person for 

every 39 screeners. On the contrary, Miami International Airport, a 

Category X airport with no spokes, has 1,722 screeners--101 more 

than O’Hare--but 24 fewer administrative staff. With 17 

administrative staff, it has one staff person for every 101 screeners. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 8 

We analyzed staffing data for hundreds of airports and there is no clear 

benchmark regarding staff size. For example, not taking into account any of 

their spokes, Category X airports currently average one administrative staff 

person for every 49 screeners. Category I airports average one staff person for 

every 19 screeners. Therefore, depending on the point of view, the airports 

above could be under or overstaffed (ratios are discussed further on page 10). 

More important, these examples illustrate the need for TSA to study in greater 

detail minimum staffing requirements of various hub and spoke areas and 

determine their optimum staff size. Category II airports may represent ideal 

case studies because their administrative staffs tend to be a larger percentage 

of generally smaller screener staffs and could represent a truer picture of the 

minimum number of staff required to sustain operations. 

Comparison of Chairman and TSA’s data for select airports

In the preceding section, we identified some examples of the nation’s airports 

that were over and understaffed, based on our analysis of the FSD staff to 

screeners ratio number. In this section, we evaluated the overstaffing issue in 

all eight airports sampled in Chairman Mica’s July 6, 2005, letter as well as 

TSA’s response to his concerns. In each airport, actual FSD staff levels were 

lower than those levels identified by the Chairman (see Table 3). The 

Chairman included certain positions that TSA does not count, such as 

Assistant FSDs (AFSD) for Law Enforcement and Regulations & Inspections 

and Screener Managers, in the composition of the FSD administrative staff.6

 

 

6

 We discussed the Chairman’s concerns with the American Association of Airport Executives and several airport 

directors. Opinions about over-staffed administrative positions were in the minority, and may have been due to 

misconceptions about the 1) composition, duties and responsibilities of the FSD administrative staff and 2) the chain of 

command of airport’s federal personnel outside the FSD administrative staff. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 9 

Table 3: Comparison of Chairman and TSA’s Data For Select Airports 

Airport 

Category 

Number of FSD 

Administrative 

Position 

Number 

of 

Screeners 

Screeners per 

Administrative 

Position 

Hub or No 

Spoke 

Airport 

Mica TSA 

Rapid City, SD III 9 6 37 6 Hub 

Manchester, NH I 25 14 168 12 Hub 

Rochester, NY* II 21 8 143 17 Hub 

Columbus, OH I 29 19 218 11 Hub 

Orlando, FL X 24 15 958 63 No spoke 

San Francisco, CA* X 44 9 1,099 122 No spoke 

Denver, CO X 36 19 724 38 Hub 

Los Angeles, CA X 105 27 2,179 80 No spoke 

 * Rochester and San Francisco are PP5 airports.7

In its January 25, 2006, response to the Chairman, TSA addressed the 

differences in two airports, San Francisco (SFO) and Rochester (ROC).8

 It 

described SFO’s administrative staff as follows: 

Of those 43 administrative positions, 12 are screening 

managers on the floor overseeing screening operations as 

required by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 

(ATSA); 13 are aviation inspectors performing regulatory 

duties such as cargo, airline, and airport security 

inspections; 1 is a law enforcement officer; 5 are rail 

inspectors accomplishing inspections and interfacing with 

rail systems within the San Francisco area; and the 

remaining 12 are management staff positions.

TSA’s response did not address whether the agency plans to reduce, cap, or 

increase FSD staff levels. However, to fully implement TSA’s reallocation 

plan would require an additional 139 positions nationwide. This is contrary to 

the Chairman’s request that TSA reduce or place a cap on non-screener 

administrative positions, but the additional positions, along with the 

reallocation of current positions, will streamline FSD administrative staffing 

levels according to airport category and screener staffing levels. 

 

7

 TSA has responsibility for security at five airports that use private or contract screeners. They are: Jackson Hole-WY, 

Kansas City-MO, Rochester-NY, San Francisco-CA and Tupelo-MS.

8

 Although Chairman Mica reported that San Francisco had 44 positions, TSA’s response identified 43 current positions. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 10 

Hub-Spoke Realignment and Reallocation Plan Streamlines 

Staffing Levels 

Driven by the realization that many airports were over or understaffed, in the 

summer of 2004, TSA began to examine how to better allocate non-screener 

positions. A small working group of nine FSD administrators from the field 

considered factors affecting administrative staffing levels, which are not based 

solely on the number of screeners. (TSA also considers the category of the 

airport, the number of spoke airports, and the number of enplanements among 

other criteria.) TSA identified those duties that one individual can perform 

and provided feedback about variables affecting staffing such as, “span of 

control, hub support to spokes, and core positions.”9 This work culminated in 

the Hub-Spoke Realignment and Reallocation Plan and in July 2005, TSA 

began to implement the plan. TSA decided which airports to label hub 

airports, which ones to label spoke airports, and the connection between hubs 

and spokes (see example in Appendix F). Hub airports would provide 

administrative support and services to their smaller spokes. TSA expects to 

complete the plan to reallocate both non-screener and screener positions by 

September 30, 2006. TSA officials explained that they are in the process of 

identifying where individuals are stationed, and their current titles. As we 

mentioned, the plan calls for an additional 139 positions, but TSA has not 

received funding for them. 

The plan should render staffing ratios nationwide more uniform. For 

example, the average ratio of FSD administrative staff to screeners at a 

Category II airport is 1:10, suggesting that they have too many administrative 

personnel. Comparatively, Category X airports, which average 1:49, appear 

understaffed. Under the plan, screeners will be reallocated from Category III 

and IV to Category X and I airports, and the average ratios will change 

accordingly (see Table 4). 

 

9

 As stated in TSA’s Field Leadership Representatives Workgroup Initiatives, November 5, 2004.
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 11 

 Table 4: Effects of the Reallocation Plan* 

Airport 

Category 

Current Ratio of 

FSD Admin 

Staff to 

Screeners 

Proposed Ratio 

of FSD Admin 

Staff to 

Screeners 

Current 

FSD 

Admin 

Positions 

Current 

Screeners 

Proposed 

FSD 

Admin 

Positions 

Proposed 

Screeners 

X 1:49 1:31 514 25,572 815 25,581 

I 1:19 1:17 722 13,766 780 13,755 

II 1:10 1:14 435 4,697 319 4,689 

III 1:12 1:26 148 1,870 70 1,858 

IV 1:45 1:239 26 1,193 5 1,196 

*Table 4 depicts actual personnel count, not full time equivalents. 

If implemented, TSA’s reorganization plan would affect where TSA deploys 

its resources.10 The plan would adjust staffing levels at most of the airports 

we identified as over or understaffed, and align staff more consistently within 

airport categories, by reducing the number of administrative positions in most 

small category airports and increasing the number of positions in large 

category airports. The differences between the original staffing chart 

(Graph 1) and the new plan (Graph 2) are evident. 

 

10 Although the hub and spoke realignment was completed in November 2005, no movement of personnel is allowed due 

to budget cuts. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 12 

Graph 2: Hub and Spoke Areas Plotted by Proposed FSD and Screener 

Staff 

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

42

45

48

51

54

57

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100

Proposed Screening Staff

Proposed FSD Staff

Category

X

Category

I

Category

II

Category

III

Category

IV

The hub and spoke plan would affect those airports discussed on pages 7-8 as 

follows: 

• Hawaii’s FSD administrative staff will increase from 51 to 55 

members for 1,159 proposed screener positions, thus reducing its ratio 

from 1:22 to 1:21. Hawaii remains an exception to the positive 

changes noted herein. It has the largest FSD staff in the country and 

despite geographic considerations, still appears overstaffed. 

Comparatively, Newark International Airport’s staff will increase from 

13 to 40, thus reducing its ratio from 1:100 to 1:32, and this change 

appears necessary. 

• El Paso International Airport will gain one administrative position, 

bringing total FSD staff to 14 for 131 screeners, a ratio of 1:9. Like 

Newark, John F. Kennedy International (JFK) Airport’s FSD staff will 

grow under the new plan. JFK will add 29 positions, bringing its total 

to 45 to support 1,666 screeners. This is a ratio of 1:37. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 13 

• Although it is a Category I airport, Jacksonville International Airport 

will lose 14 positions, leaving it with 17 administrative positions for 

273 screeners (up from 261), a ratio of 1:16. Memphis International 

Airport, will increase from 11 to 15 FSD staff members for 280 

screeners, causing the ratio to decrease to 1:18, much closer to 

Jacksonville’s staffing level. 

• Miami International Airport will gain 27 positions, bringing total FSD 

staff to 44 for 1,723 screeners, reducing its ratio from 1:101 to 1:39, 

the same as O’Hare International Airport. O’Hare’s staffing levels 

will remain unchanged (41 FSD staff and 1,631 screeners), a ratio of 

1:39. 

As noted, some of the new hub and spoke areas still appear over or 

understaffed. TSA hired and deployed too many administrative staff at some 

airports and too few at others, and staffing ratios were inconsistent. This 

might be due to the presence of privatized screeners, the size of screener staff, 

airport category, their geographical location, whether they are hub or spoke 

airport, or other unique aspects of each airport. But more important, 

implementing the plan does not answer the fundamental question of whether 

TSA has the optimal number of administrative staff. 

The plan would affect all of the airports the Chairman identified (see Table 5). 

It would reduce the number of administrative positions at the Rapid City, 

Manchester and Rochester airports, and increase the number of positions at 

Columbus, Orlando, San Francisco, and Los Angeles airports. 

 Table 5: Proposed FSD Staffing Adjustments in Select Airports 

 

Current FSD 

Admin Staff 

Proposed FSD 

Admin Staff Change 

Rapid City, SD 6 2 -4 

Manchester, NH 14 12 -2 

Rochester, NY 8 4 -4 

Columbus, OH 14 15 +1 

Orlando, FL 15 35 +20 

San Francisco, CA 9 17 +8 

Denver, CO 19 28 +9 

Los Angeles, CA 27 48 +21 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 14 

Plan would change FSD staffing levels at most of the SPP airports 

When TSA assumed responsibility for aviation security in February 2002 and 

to establish a federal workforce to screen all passengers and baggage by the 

end of that year, it allowed five airports to contract private sector screeners 

subject to federal oversight under the private screeners pilot program (PP5s). 

Under the program, TSA has responsibility for security, but contractor or 

private screeners perform the screening. TSA permitted one airport from each 

category to participate in the pilot program. Airports in San Francisco 

(Category X), Kansas City (Category I), Rochester (Category II), Jackson 

Hole (Category III) and Tupelo (Category IV) participated in the program. In 

November 2004, TSA replaced the pilot program with the Screening 

Partnership Program (SPP), or “Opt-Out,” whereby airport operators were 

allowed to opt-out of the federal screening program. Sioux Falls joined the 

SPP, thereby increasing the number of airports using private screening 

companies to six (see Table 6). 

 Table 6: Staffing Ratios at SPP Airports 

Airport 

Category 

Current FSD 

Admin Staff 

Number of 

Screeners 

Ratio of Admin 

Staff to 

Screeners 

San Francisco, CA X 9 1099 1:122 

Kansas City, MO I 12 575 1:47 

Rochester, NY II 8 143 1:17 

Sioux Falls, SD II 5 37 1:7 

Jackson Hole, WY III 1 46 1:46 

Tupelo, MS IV -- 8 -- 

The Chairman raised concerns about the program by noting, “TSA staffing is 

redundant and duplicative of the qualified screening company personnel at the 

airports participating in the private screener pilot program (PP5).” At two of 

the six airports, Rochester and Sioux Falls, the number of FSD staff onsite to 

oversee contract screeners did appear excessive.11 Their staffing ratios of 1:18 

and 1:7, respectively, were among the lowest nationwide. TSA plans to 

reduce the number of positions at Rochester from 8 to 4, which will make its 

staff level commensurate with other airports its size. At Sioux Falls, TSA 

plans to add administrative positions because this airport will service six 

 

11 Under ATSA, all PP5/SPP airports must have FSD oversight. The FSD also requires an administrative staff, 

including a secretary. SPP hub airports also serve spoke airports that are federally staffed. Although SFO has no spoke 

airports, the FSD has a staff of Training Personnel, Screening Managers and regulatory personnel who depend on 

administrative support.
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 15 

spokes and a total of 97 screeners. This change would result in one 

administrative staff for every 16 screeners, a ratio we might otherwise 

construe as high.12 However, the ratio is consistent with Little Rock, another 

hub with at least six spokes. 

We did not take exception to TSA’s planned realignment of FSD staffing in 

the remaining SPP airports. San Francisco will gain eight positions, reducing 

its ratio to 1:65. Staffing levels at Kansas City and Tupelo will not change, 

and Tupelo has no FSD administrative staff. 

Screeners Perform a Substantial Amount of Administrative 

Work 

Complicating an evaluation of FSD staffing levels is the fact that FSDs 

regularly assign screeners to perform administrative functions. According to 

TSA headquarters’ officials and FSDs, the primary reason why screeners 

perform administrative work is that airports lack sufficient administrative 

personnel to overcome inefficiencies in recording time and attendance data. 

The larger screener workforce makes it an attractive labor pool from which to 

draw when administrative work is required. 

From pay period 20 of 2005 through pay period 1 of 2006, screeners 

performed administrative work equal to 1,441 full time equivalent (FTE) 

positions.13 This equates to 78% of the 1,850-member FSD administrative 

staff. Screening staff worked overtime to complete administrative tasks. For 

example, screeners worked 150,019 hours and 158,262 hours of overtime on 

administrative functions during pay periods 20 and 21 respectively. 

Screeners’ administrative work involved time and attendance assistance but 

also included communications, clerical, and budgetary duties. FSDs told us 

they also rotate their screeners for these assignments in a way that does not 

affect screening operations. Often, but not always, the detailed screeners are 

injured and on “light duty” status, i.e., duties that screeners are able to 

 

12 Geographical dispersion is an important consideration when allocating administrative positions to hubs that service 

spokes. 

13 In August 2005, TSA migrated from the Consolidated Uniform Payroll System to the National Finance Center (NFC) 

payroll system, thereby enabling it to determine how much of the screener workforce is doing administrative work every 

pay period. The NFC payroll system categorizes and tracks the amount of hours screeners are involved in tasks such as: 

passenger screening, baggage screening, administrative, training, and maintenance in FTE. TSA officials informed us 

that Hurricane Katrina affected the initial transition to the NFC.
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 16 

perform while injured. Some of the 1,441 FTEs will always be doing 

administrative work that directly supports screening operations, i.e., not the 

office work that is done by the FSD administrative staff.14 Although FSDs we 

interviewed consistently attested to screeners performing administrative work, 

based on the data provided to us by TSA, we were unable to differentiate 

between the amount of time screeners spent on FSD’s office-based work and 

screening-related administrative duties. 

According to the National Finance Center (NFC) payroll system, the percent 

of screeners doing administrative work has gradually increased since pay 

period 20 (see Graph 3). 

 Graph 3: Percent of Screeners Doing Administrative Work 

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PP1-06

Pay Period

In Percentage

The extent to which the migration to the NFC payroll system and the new 

staffing plan will affect the number of screeners and amount of time they 

spend on administrative tasks is unclear. Many FSDs stated that, if 

implemented, the staffing plan would eliminate the need for most, if not all, 

screeners to enter time and attendance data. Headquarters officials asserted 

that the new payroll system would slightly improve data entry, and permit a 

reduction in the use of screeners or FSD administrative staff, but did not 

quantify that reduction. TSA expects that the new hub and spoke system will 

shift the burden of administrative work more to the hub airports that have the 

larger administrative staffs and more screeners to support themselves and their 

spoke airports. However, not all of the new hub airports are gaining 

 

14 Screeners also participate in training to maintain their recertification and maintenance. They are required to pass 

screening recertification tests on an annual basis. Combined, their time worked on training and maintenance averaged 

1,122 FTEs and 74 FTEs respectively over the same time period. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 17 

administrative staff. We concur that automation of the new payroll system 

warrants further study. 

 

Screening Managers Earn Less Than $100,000 Annually 

In his letter, the Chairman stated, “Many TSA supervisory screening positions 

have questionable job descriptions that pay over $100,000 annually.” In total, 

240 employees (13%) out of the 1,850 total FSD administrative staff earn over 

$100,000.15 With respect to supervisory screening positions, there are 18 

AFSDs for Screening who can earn more than $100,000.16 The remaining 222 

positions who earn more than $100,000 consist of 106 FSDs, 38 DFSDs, 31 

AFSDs, 17 AFSDs for Operations, 9 Administrative Officers, 5 Customer 

Service Managers, 4 Stakeholder Managers, 4 Training Instructors, 4 Special 

Advisors, 2 Program Analysts, 2 Executive Assistants, 1 Training Coordinator 

and 1 Training Specialist. AFSDs for Screening, who are part of the FSD 

administrative staff, supervise Screening Managers, Screening Supervisors, 

and Lead Screeners. 

 Table 7: Salary and Hierarchical Structure of Screening 

 Operations Personnel 

Position Pay Band Min. & Max. Salary* 

AFSD-Screening I /J/K $54,100 – $122,300 

Screening Manager (Technical) H/I 44,400 – 83,900 

Screener Supervisor G 35,400 – 56,400 

Lead Screener F 31,100 – 40,700 

Screener D 23,600 – 35,400 

 * Excludes locality pay. 

Screening Managers, Screening Supervisors, and Lead Screeners perform 

varying degrees of screener staff oversight. All of these positions earn less 

than $100,000 annually (see Table 7). The average salary of 1,081 Screening 

Managers is $52,005. Of these positions, 422 Screening Managers (40%) 

have annual pay that exceeds the average salary. The highest paid Screening 

Manager, who works at a Category X airport, makes $90,791 annually; the 

lowest paid Screening Manager earns a gross salary of $44,000 a year. The 

 

15 Forty-nine law enforcement and regulatory officials also make over $100,000, but are not counted as part of the FSD 

staff because they are subject to different position descriptions and budget line items. 

16 The salaries of the FSD administrative staff are based on pay bands. Each administrative position may have a number 

of pay bands. For example, an AFSD could be in an “I” band earning a minimum salary of $54,100, while another 

AFSD could be in a “K” pay band making a maximum of $122,300.
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 18 

pay band, number of personnel, and the average salary of all FSD staff 

positions are contained in Appendix E. 

AFSDs for Screening and Screening Managers both have job descriptions that 

are commensurate with their duties (see position descriptions in Appendix G). 

For example, an AFSD for Screening is responsible for a staff that consists of 

screeners and managers at large airports that have multiple checkpoints. Staff 

at the checkpoints screen passengers, clean screening equipment, and ensure 

passengers follow the laws, regulations, and policies relating to TSA’s 

aviation security program. An AFSD for Screening also interfaces with 

headquarters officials and the heads of other airport operations to ensure 

effective program management. A Screening Manager is responsible for the 

screening procedures at multiple checkpoints, which includes processing 

passengers, baggage, and cargo and screener performance. The Screener 

Manager also manages spoke airports, which are sometimes remotely located. 

FSD Administrative Staff Regularly Perform Other Duties As 

Assigned 

The Chairman alluded to “instances where FSDs hire non-screening 

administrative staff who have limited and in many cases poorly defined 

responsibilities.” In general, position descriptions for administrative and 

screener personnel are commensurate with the employees’ duties and 

responsibilities. However, TSA should consider revising some position 

descriptions to better reflect the actual duties and responsibilities of its 

administrative staff. 

The type of staff needed at airports continues to evolve. TSA is giving higher 

priority to hiring administrative positions such as Human Resources 

Specialists, Payroll Specialists, Financial Specialists, Administrative Officers, 

and Customer Service Specialists. On the other hand, positions that are too 

specialized or where there is not enough work, are now contingent upon need 

and funding. These include Support Managers, Metrics Specialists, Industrial 

Engineers, and Customer Service Specialists. 

The consensus we heard among FSDs was that the duties need to be 

completed regardless of who does it and how long it takes. As a result, on a 

more frequent basis FSDs are cross-training their staff by combining positions 

with duties that may overlap and requiring them to perform functions outside 

of their position descriptions. For example, FSDs are combining the 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 19 

Stakeholder Liaison and Customer Support & Quality Improvement positions 

because they do not believe separate positions are needed. An FSD stationed 

at one of the nation’s largest airports stated that he does not have a 

Stakeholder Liaison; rather the rest of his staff shares those duties. Another 

FSD stated that he has an employee who is technically an Industrial Engineer, 

but that employee’s duties more resemble those of a Program Analyst. An 

FSD at a Category II mentioned that she also functions as the airport’s 

Stakeholder Liaison and assists with legal issues. 

These examples reflect TSA’s growing pursuit of analysts with broader skills 

who can perform a multitude of tasks and give FSDs more flexibility with 

their resources. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary, TSA: 

Recommendation 1: Conduct a workforce analysis of FSD administrative 

staff and develop a staffing model to identify the number of employees 

actually needed at airports. This analysis should identify key mission areas 

and responsibilities; and take into consideration the time and nature of 

administrative work performed by screeners when assessing its workforce 

requirements. 

Recommendation 2: Review proposed adjustments to FSD staffing levels 

and ratios of administrative to screener personnel. In particular, proposed 

changes to Hawaii’s administrative staff caught our attention as warranting 

more review. 

Recommendation 3: Continue to study technologies or systems that will 

automate data entry functions at airports. 

Recommendation 4: Reclassify administrative positions using more 

inclusive position titles to incorporate more of the functions employees 

perform and facilitate the hiring of administrative personnel. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 20 

Management Comments and OIG Evaluation 

We evaluated TSA’s written comments and have made changes to the report 

where we deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of TSA’s written 

responses to the report’s recommendations and our analysis of the responses. 

Recommendation 1: Conduct a workforce analysis of FSD administrative 

staff and develop a staffing model to identify the number of employees 

actually needed at airports. This analysis should identify key mission areas 

and responsibilities; take into consideration the time and nature of 

administrative work performed by screeners when assessing its workforce 

requirements. 

TSA Response: TSA’s Office of Human Capital (OHC), in partnership with 

the Office of Security Operations (OSO), will conduct a comprehensive 

workforce review. The overarching goal for TSA’s workforce analysis will be 

to establish an overall position structure that will best serve the mission of 

TSA in accordance with official organizational and functional statements; 

optimize efficiency, productivity, and organizational effectiveness; and 

support the goals of DHS. OHC and OSO will review functions performed at 

a sampling of airports and determine the necessary structure to support 

mission accomplishment. OHC and OSO will seek to optimize the 

distribution of staff resources, and identify, prevent, and eliminate 

unnecessary organizational fragmentation. Furthermore, the review will assist 

in determining the number of positions needed, the skill and knowledge 

requirements of those positions, and the grouping of duties and 

responsibilities among positions. TSA will initiate the workforce analysis 

during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006 and expects to conclude it by the 

end of the second quarter 2007. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s plan to conduct a comprehensive workforce review 

of administrative staff is responsive to this recommendation. TSA should 

update the OIG on the status of this review in its 90-day Action Plan and upon 

its completion, provide the results to the OIG. Recommendation 1 is resolved 

– open. 

Recommendation 2: Review proposed adjustments to FSD staffing levels 

and ratios of administrative to screener personnel. In particular, proposed 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 21 

changes to Hawaii’s administrative staff caught our attention as warranting 

more review. 

TSA Response: TSA completed a review of Federal Security Director (FSD) 

staffing levels at all airports in May 2006. With respect to the current budget, 

new business rules were developed based primarily on the ratio of FSD staff 

to Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Full-Time Equivalents (FTE), 

allocated Screening Managers, and Aviation Security Inspectors. Other 

factors include the number of spokes assigned to a hub and the distance 

between a hub and its supported spoke airports. FSD staff is now, in large 

part, distributed according to TSO FTE workforce size, not airport category. 

This improved approach allows for economies of scale: as authorized TSO 

FTE changes, the ratio of FTE to staff is also adjusted. TSA is currently 

implementing the plan and assessing its impact with a target completion of 

September 30, 2006. 

TSA asserted that Hawaii presents a unique situation with respect to staffing 

requirements. Travel between Hawaii’s seven airports spread across four 

islands, requires FSD staff to fly. Therefore, this prevents Hawaii’s locations 

from being easily compared to other individual category X or hub and spoke 

airports including locations such as Newark Liberty. TSA is taking these 

challenges into consideration. The new hub and spoke model will bring the 

Hawaii staffing allocations more in line with airports with similar challenges. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s May 2006 review of FSD staffing, in which TSA 

reviewed the proposed adjustments of the ratio of FSD administrative 

positions to screeners, is responsive to our recommendation. The new FSD 

staffing plan should provide specific information to help determine whether to 

reduce, cap, or increase FSD administrative staff levels. In its 90-day Action 

Plan, TSA should provide a copy of the new plan and impact assessment 

showing changes in FSD staff levels at all airports. 

FSD staff fly between the Hawaiian islands out of necessity, but that does not 

render our comparisons invalid. The travel time needed to visit spoke airports 

in Hawaii is comparable to the travel time between mainland hub and spoke 

airports. For example, the travel time from Honolulu to Hilo is 50 minutes 

and from Honolulu to Lihue requires just 20 minutes. We encourage TSA to 

demonstrate in its Action Plan how Hawaii staffing allocations are consistent 

with other airports. Recommendation 2 is resolved – open. 
Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 22 

Recommendation 3: Continue to study technologies or systems that will 

automate data entry functions at airports. 

TSA Response: TSA’s Office of Human Capital received authorization to 

proceed with the electronic Time and Attendance program (eTA) on June 19, 

2006. The eTA program will enable TSOs to “badge” in and out, fully 

automating the entry of timekeeping data, calculating time differentials, and 

overtime activities. This program will enable those employees who are 

currently performing data entry for timekeeping to return to their normal work 

position. The program is now in the acquisition cycle. TSA expects to 

implement the eTA program by September 2007. TSA continues to seek 

other opportunities to improve efficiencies with automated data entry at 

airports. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s plan to automate time and attendance data entry 

through the eTA program is responsive to this recommendation. In its Action 

Plan, TSA should update the OIG on the status of the program and explain in 

greater detail how the eTA program has affected the screener workforce. 

Recommendation 3 is resolved – open. 

Recommendation 4: Reclassify administrative positions using more 

inclusive position titles to incorporate more of the functions employees 

perform and facilitate the hiring of administrative personnel. 

TSA Response: TSA stated that a natural outcome of is comprehensive 

workforce analysis will be the development of positions to support actual 

functions performed. The workforce analysis will result in the development of 

a position scheme which clearly delineates assigned duties and responsibilities 

within the framework established by official organizational and functional 

statements, avoids conflict or overlap with other positions, and serves as an 

effective tool for recruiting, training, advancement, and evaluation of a quality 

work force. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA needs to ensure that the reclassification of 

administrative positions using more inclusive position titles occurs. The 

recommendation can be completed simultaneously with the workforce 

analysis, as TSA has suggested, but the two are independent of each other. 

Compliance with this recommendation will clarify the duties of each 

administrative position and provide TSA with insight regarding staffing 

shortfalls. In its Action Plan, TSA should identify those positions it intends to 

reclassify. Recommendation 4 is resolved – open.
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 23 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

In July 2005, Congressman John Mica, Chairman, House Aviation 

Subcommittee, requested that the OIG review TSA’s non-screener 

administrative staff levels and consider the need for a reduction or a cap on 

these positions. He stated that: a) all-Federal airport screening operations are 

top heavy in administrative positions, b) TSA staffing is redundant and 

duplicative at private screener pilot program (PP5) airports, 

c) Federal Security Directors hired non-screening administrative staff who 

have limited and in many instances poorly defined responsibilities, and 

d) many TSA supervisory screening positions have questionable job 

descriptions that pay over $100,000 annually. 

We examined TSA’s methodology behind its original staffing chart, and 

evaluated proposed staffing changes as part of the realignment plan. Our 

analysis of the airport staffing levels was primarily based on the FSD staff 

relative to the number of screeners they served. We were unable to determine 

how much of administrative support either in terms of hours or FTEs, was 

used by regulatory inspectors and law enforcement personnel present at 

airports from TSA’s data. We collected and analyzed data on TSA nonadministrative staffing positions, position descriptions and salaries. We also 

examined the nature of work and amount of time screeners spent on 

administrative tasks. We also reviewed TSA’s letter of January 25, 2006, in 

response to Chairman Mica’s concerns. 

We interviewed officials from the Office of Aviation Security and the Chief 

Financial Office, including the Acting Chief Operating Officer; all three Area 

Directors; the Director, Infrastructure; and the Assistant Director, Materiel. 

We met with officials from the American Association of Airport Executives 

(AAAE). In response to our review, the AAAE surveyed Airport Directors on 

these issues and we reviewed those responses forwarded by the AAAE. In 

addition, we conducted teleconferences with six airport directors. 

We selected a judgmental sample of 25 airports across the country and 

conducted teleconferences with their FSDs. These airports included: 

 

• Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL) 

• Bangor International (BGR) 

• Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 24 

• Yeager Airport (CRW) 

• Charleston International Airport (CHS) 

• Port Columbus International Airport (CMH) 

• Denver International Airport (DEN) 

• Detroit Metro Wayne County (DTW) 

• Dallas Love Field (DAL) 

• General Mitchell International Airport (MKE) 

• Honolulu International Airport (HNL) 

• Indianapolis International Airport (IND) 

• Jacksonville International Airport (JAX) 

• John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 

• Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) 

• Manchester Airport (MHT) 

• Miami International Airport (MIA) 

• Newark International Airport (EWR) 

• O’Hare International Airport (ORD) 

• Orlando International Airport (MCO) 

• Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) 

• Portland International Airport (PDX) 

• Rapid City Regional (RAP) 

• Rochester-Monroe County (ROC) 

• San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 

In addition, we held face-to-face meetings with FSDs at: 

• Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) 

• Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) 

• Dulles International Airport (IAD). 

We completed our fieldwork in January 2006. Our review was conducted 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and 

according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s 

Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 25 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 26 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 27 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 28 
Appendix C 

Chairman Mica’s July 6, 2005 Letter 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 29 
AppendixC 

Chairman Mica’s July 6, 2005 Letter 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 30 
AppendixC 

Chairman Mica’s July 6, 2005 Letter 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 31 
AppendixD 

TSA’s Response to Chairman Mica’s Letter 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 32 
Appendix D 

TSA’s Response to Chairman Mica’s Letter 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 33 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 34 

Pay Band, Number, and Average Salary of FSD Administrative 

Staff 

Position Pay Band Total 

Staff 

Average 

Salary 

Federal Security Director I/J/K/SES 142 $119,334

Deputy Federal Security Director I/J/K/SES 116 92,265 

AFSD-Operations and Screening I/J/K 233 89,166 

Administrative Officer and Specialist I/J 131 77,149 

Customer Service Quality Improvement/Support 

Manager 

I/J 65 75,622 

Scheduling Operations Officer H/I 111 75,360 

Stakeholder (Liaison and Manager) H/I/J 99 72,483 

Training (Coordinator, Instructor and Specialist) G/H/I 194 64,873 

Specialist (Finance, Human Resources and Procurement) G/H/I/J 305 62,570 

Others 19 62,063 

Customer Specialist and Management Analyst D/E/F 44 60,436 

Executive Assistant F/G 49 49,924 

Program (Analyst and Assistant) D thru J 144 46,966 

Secretary D/E/F 82 37,965 

Administrative Assistant, Clerk and Secretary D/E 94 33,147 
AppendixF 

Map of the Western Area 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 35 

 

Western Area 

Re-Hub Proposal 
Appendix G 

Position Descriptions 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 36 

Position Descriptions 

Federal Security Director

Provides day-to-day direction for federal airport security staff and operations. 

The FSD will be the ranking TSA authority responsible for the leadership and 

coordination of TSA security activities. These responsibilities and 

accompanying authority include tactical planning, execution, and operating 

management for coordinated security services and other duties as prescribed 

by the Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security. The FSD is 

responsible for activities such as: organizing and implementing the Federal 

Security Crisis Management Response Plan; implementation, performance 

and enhancement of security and screening standards for airport employees 

and passengers; oversight of passenger, baggage, and air cargo security 

screening; airport security risk assessments; security technology 

implementation and maintenance within established guidelines; crisis 

management; data and communications network protection and recovery as it 

impacts on federal security responsibilities; employee security awareness 

training; supervision of Federal law enforcement activities within the purview 

of the FSD and TSA; and coordination of applicable federal, state, and local 

emergency services and law enforcement. 

Deputy Federal Security Director

Serves at a medium-sized airport with multiple checkpoints and is responsible 

for supporting the FSD by providing day-to day direction for airport security 

staff and operations. Supports the FSD in areas such as tactical planning, 

execution, and operating management for coordinated security services. 

Serves as principal advisor to the FSD on all matters concerning operational 

support. Prepares, plans, coordinates, and manages support operations that 

include customer service/stakeholder programs, training, and engineering 

services. Confers with the FSD and or project staff personnel to outline work 

plans, provide technical advice to resolve problems, review status reports and 

modify schedules to meet workload fluctuations. Responsibilities also 

include: organizing and implementing the Federal Security Crisis 

Management Response Plan; implementation, performance and enhancement 

of security and screening standards for airport employees and passengers; 

oversight of passenger, baggage and air cargo security screening; airport 

security risk assessments; security technology implementation and 

maintenance within established guidelines; crisis management; data and 

communications network protection and recovery as it impacts on federal 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 37 

security responsibilities; employee security awareness training; supervision of 

Federal law enforcement activities within the purview of the FSD and TSA, 

and coordination of applicable federal, state, and local emergency services and 

law enforcement. 

Assistant Federal Security Director - Operations

Serves as the principal advisor to the FSD on all matters concerning the 

administration and operational support of a large airport. Directs the work of 

supervisors, program managers and other subordinate employees for multiple 

administrative and operational functions. Prepares, plans, coordinates, and 

manages support operations that include administration, financial/budget, 

human resources, customer service/stakeholder, training, procurement and 

engineering services. Confers with the FSD and/or project staff personnel to 

outline work plans, provide technical advice, resolve problems, review status 

reports and modify schedules to accomplish duties. Identifies and determines 

type of actions required to meet time frames and budget/ funding limitations. 

Sets up procedures to meet the FSD’s staffing requirements and provides 

necessary resources to accomplish the projects. Manages or conducts 

targeted recruitment and/or other external marketing sources to assist in 

providing diverse applicant pools to the FSD. Advises/informs FSD on 

unusual or complex managerial or personnel disciplinary issues. Provides 

data/information and reports from a statistical and narrative database in all 

support areas. Exercises discretion and sound judgment in dealing with 

sensitive human resource matters or issues. Impact of work typically affects 

TSA policies and objectives and regularly affects personnel inside and outside 

the organization. 

Assistant Federal Security Director- Screening

Is responsible for a staff of security screeners and managers at a large 

Category X or I sized airport with multiple checkpoints that conduct 

screening, manages operations, and administers laws, regulations and policy 

pertaining to the agency’s aviation security program. The work accomplished 

impacts all civil aviation security personnel at the specific airport. Exercises 

final authority for the full range of managerial responsibilities over the staff. 

Makes major recommendations concerning significant internal and external 

program policy issues affecting the overall organization, such as scheduling, 

full-time/part-time and gender hiring needs, screener FTE allocation, 

selections, process control, writing performance criteria, and managing 

personnel in a 24/7 environment. Interfaces with individuals from 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 38 

headquarters and other airport operations to assure effective program 

management. 

Scheduling Operations Officer

Assists with coordinating the day-to-day operational activities related to 

screening functions at an assigned airport. Schedules all screener operations 

activities. Responsible for the efficient implementation, performance, and 

enhancement of security and screening standards for airports/airline 

employees and passengers, their baggage, and all other personnel and goods 

subject to screening that enter the sterile area. Creates daily personnel 

schedules for all shifts and ensures sufficient coverage during operating hours. 

Maintains personnel check-in/out sheets to ensure appropriate log ins. 

Prepares, distributes, collects, and maintains all records, reports, files, 

paperwork and logs for supervisors. Receives daily briefings from Screening 

Managers regarding personnel staffing needs, sign-in/sign-out sheets, safety 

hazards, maintenance needs, incident reports, etc. Performs quality assurance 

audits as directed. Communicates information concerning personnel policy 

and procedures, safety hazards and equipment to FSD. Performs semi-annual 

screening security risk assessments and stays abreast of local airport 

emergency plans (e.g. alarms, evacuations, etc.) 

Stakeholder Liaison

Serves as a Stakeholder Liaison for the Transportation Security 

Administration at a medium/small sized US airport. As such he/she serves as 

liaison for the FSD with various stakeholders concern with aviation security 

policy. Works closely with the leadership to develop, coordinate, implement 

and maintain a program to communicate to stakeholders the TSA’s policies, 

programs and directives. 

Identifies and responds to stakeholder’s questions, programs and concerns 

regarding security. Recommends changes as needed to improve 

communications with stakeholders. As the principal TSA interface with 

security stakeholders, incumbent works to identify and implement best 

practices to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of aviation security 

policies. 

Training Coordinator/Specialist

Serves as a liaison concerning training matters between FSD and the 

Transportation Security Administration headquarters, including the Office of 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 39 

Workforce Performance and Training (WPT) and the headquarters Aviation 

Program Office. 

Plans, directs, schedules, evaluates and integrates training and professional 

development products and services within the airport environment; promotes 

the availability of these products and services to the workforce. Serves as the 

primary resource to the FSD with regard to coordinating plans, programs, 

standards and procedures governing airport-wide training, career 

development, screener recertification, and screener performance improvement 

programs/activities. Provides advice and guidance to the FSD pertinent to the 

training needs and workforce performance improvement programs generated 

in support of the airport functions. Conducts briefings for senior-level 

management and staff on training and development issues/opportunities. 

Ensures that training products respond to TSA goals and objectives. 

Documents training activities/accomplishments in web-based learning 

management system; ensures the currency of training database and materials. 

Manages instructors, which may include identifying and overseeing TSA 

Approved Instructors (TAI), coordinating with screening management to 

identify individuals appropriate to provide screener on-the-job training, and 

coordinating with contractors who conduct training. May act as TAI or Test 

Administrator. Schedules new hire training. Provides feedback to WPT on 

training solutions and may recommend modifications to existing training or 

alternative training approaches. 

Customer Service Manager

Serves as the primary airport representative for ongoing customer 

improvement initiatives supporting the sustained delivery of quality 

customer service. Works in conjunction with FSD staff to identify needs 

and implement efficient screening process improvements. Serves as 

primary contact for the management of all customer resolution activities, 

acting as the ‘voice of the customer’. Facilitates interest-based solutions 

with customers through cooperative problem solving and conflict 

resolution skills. Develops and maintains customer feedback loops to 

improve techniques for gathering data and information. Oversees 

implementation of TSA signage program at station. 

Creates and implements customer focused initiatives. Initiates customer 

focused surveys to identify and report on programs addressing both strengths 

and weaknesses in processes. Uses the Performance Management Information 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 40 

System and the Business Intelligence Tool to review critical data and develop 

action plan recommendations. Partners with FSD staff in providing detailed 

analysis and recommendations for improvement initiatives. Communicates 

relevant information to local TSA community on service and improvement 

initiatives. 

Industrial Engineer/Metric Specialist

Serves as Program Analyst (Metrics) within the office of the Area Director. 

Using broad discretion, the incumbent performs a variety of vital staff-level 

management, direction, advisory and guidance functions on activities 

associated with program and policy operations for the area. Serves as a 

troubleshooter for sensitive problems and issues resulting from management 

inquiries. Participates in the formulation and review of aviation management 

policies and procedures. 

Applies experience and advanced knowledge to plan and perform 

administrative assignments for projects and programs. Has a broad 

understanding of how administrative assignments contribute to organizational 

activities. Typical specialized assignments may include: compiling, tracking, 

and analyzing data; preparing correspondence; providing written or oral 

explanation of organizational policies; and coordinating the implementation of 

new office policies and systems. Efforts will include evaluating complex and 

varied information in order to develop and evaluate proposed solutions and 

recommendations for an elected course of actions. 

Has thorough knowledge of requirements, techniques, technologies, methods, 

and systems sufficient to formulate plans, and to interpret regulations, 

policies, and directives pertaining to the National Emergency Preparedness 

Plan in crisis management. 

Administrative Officer

Serves as the administrative manager and advisor to airport management at 

larger sized airports. The Administrative Officer plans, manages, leads and 

evaluates a comprehensive administrative support program that includes 

financial management, human resources, and procurement. Participates 

and/or directs fiscal analysis and research in support of the preparation and 

administration of capital and operating budgets. Keeps senior staff informed 

of any potential problems in administrative and personnel management areas 

regarding their activities. Reviews incoming new data, written material, 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 41 

policy recommendations, and other information and analyzes content to revise 

or refine the recommendations or text. Drafts and reviews all policy 

correspondence to assure accurate budgetary, personnel, and administrative 

impact. Participates in the development and implementation of new or 

modified guidelines, work processes, and operations in order to maintain 

and/or improve the effectiveness, efficiency, or timeliness of processes and 

information dissemination. Participates in the development of both short and 

long-term strategic planning for the organization. Supervises a staff of 

administrative, clerical, and technical personnel. Establishes, leads, and 

coordinates teams to accomplish project objectives, which includes goal 

setting, monitoring performance and taking corrective actions. Supervises or 

independently performs special projects. Non-routine work is reviewed by 

higher-level manager. 

Human Resources Specialist

Serves as a human resources (HR) specialist for a medium sized airport and is 

responsible for coordinating and overseeing the daily HR activities and 

programs within the airport and associated spoke airports. 

Provides the FSD management and Administrative Officer with operational 

support and management advisory services from knowledge and practical 

experience gained in a variety of HR disciplines, such as: classification, 

compensation and pay, employee benefits, employee relations, position 

management, personnel processing, recruitment and staffing. Serves as the 

FSD’s resident HR consultant, provides technical interpretations and guidance 

on HR matters based on directions from Headquarters’ Office of Human 

Resources or designated field representatives. Provides management advisory 

services to the FSD staff as appropriate and provides first line response to 

airport employees’ inquiries, as well as those assigned to spoke airports, as 

appropriate. Responds to address a range of HR inquiries involving routine to 

complex actions, and contacts senior agency HR contacts for assistance in 

addressing difficult and unusual issues. Ensures the accuracy and timely 

submission of personnel requests and other HR actions, and implements and 

provides technical guidance for HR-related programs and activities in efficient 

manner. Maintains familiarity with and applies a good working knowledge of 

HR policies and programs. 

Supports the use of an Integrated Conflict Management System (ICMS) as 

part of TSA’s vision to create a Model Workplace and supports Model 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 42 

Workplace Initiative as directed by FSD. Responsible for the creation, 

delivery and monitoring of FSD assigned projects. 

Works directly with local personnel and TSA Headquarters to ensure the 

success of national customer service partnerships and educational programs. 

Works locally to ensure security procedures and programs are consistently and 

effectively communicated to passengers. Builds partnerships and educates 

individuals, groups and associations impacted by TSA policies, procedures 

and programs emphasizing summer and holiday periods. Available to assist 

with local media requests as required in coordination with TSA Public Affairs. 

Financial Specialist

Performs a wide range of budget analysis assignments. He/She will be 

responsible for the following: performing a wide variety of analytical duties 

associated with the formulation, review, justification, presentation and 

execution of the budget to include: reviewing, analyzing, and interpreting 

financial and program performance data, existing and proposed legislation, 

appropriations language and other statutory requirements, and Executive 

Orders; providing expert advice and recommendations for budgetary and 

program actions and advising management and junior specialist on most 

advantageous course of action; and monitoring the execution of the airport’s 

budget through the review of financial documents, examination of accounting 

records and information provided by managers and TSA HQ Finance Office. 

Other duties may include: 1) reviewing legislation, rules, regulations and 

Departmental guidelines for impact on the airport’s financial management 

activities; and 2) providing accounting support to plan and organize work 

associated with financial management and fiscal program matters. 

Executive Secretary

Serves as the Executive Assistant to the Director at large sized airports. 

Works independently with a high degree of tact and diplomacy to carry out 

special assignments requiring comprehensive knowledge of TSA’s mission. 

Assignments are typically project based and of a sensitive and confidential 

nature. Assignments may require coordination with other airport 

administrative offices, TSA offices, and/or other federal agencies. Performs 

research and conducts analysis on a wide range of subjects. Prepares reports, 

summaries, and/or presentations incorporating the findings and conclusions. 

Analyzes internal office workflow and establishes procedures to improve 

effectiveness and efficiency of operations. Reviews all correspondence for 
Appendix G 

Pay Band, Number, and Average 

Salary of FSD Administrative Staff 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 43 

FSD’s signature to ensure compliance with TSA policies. Work is frequently 

reviewed by higher level manager. 

Secretary (Office Automation)

Serves as secretary in a large-size airport environment for TSA. The 

incumbent performs a variety of secretarial and administrative functions to 

implement the office’s administrative programs, policies and procedures. 

Provides administrative support in the areas of human resources, finance and 

procurement. Duties and responsibilities may also include: ensures the 

manager is provided with the background and the most current information on 

particular subjects by researching files and other documents for pertinent data 

before referring visitors; maintains the manager’s appointment calendar; 

handles incoming correspondence, information, and documents which flow 

through the office, ensures timely handling of sensitive material; reads and 

reviews all outgoing correspondence, reports, and other material; makes travel 

arrangements; develops and maintains an effective filing system; coordinates 

and schedules meetings and conferences; receives, screens and directs 

incoming phone calls, visitors, and mail; maintains time and attendance 

reports; and responds to general inquiries. 

Screening Manager

Is responsible for screening procedures, processes (passenger, baggage, cargo, 

et al), and performance. Uses good judgment while making decisions in the 

field. Manages multiple locations simultaneously, including off-site locations 

(i.e., spoke airports). Manages screening checkpoints that are central to TSA 

objectives that serve to protect the traveling public by preventing any deadly 

or dangerous objects from being transported onto an aircraft. Recognizes and 

recommends correction of improper use or application of the equipment, 

provides guidance to subordinates, and answers routine questions presented by 

subordinates. Manages and supports the collection of various performance 

metrics in an effort to identify areas in need of process improvement and 

systemic or individual weaknesses, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies in the 

screening process. Coordinates national and local crisis management and 

incident response protocols. Recognizes and understands the customer service 

needs of the traveling public and balances these needs with safety and security 

in mind. Works cooperatively with airport stakeholders in furtherance of the 

TSA mission. Monitors individual performance and provides frequent 

communication in order to promote screener development.
Appendix H 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 44 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews

William McCarron, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews 

M. Faizul Islam, Ph.D. Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews 

Melissa Keaster, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections and Special Reviews 
Appendix I 

Report Distribution 

Review of TSA Non-Screener Administrative Positions 

Page 45 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

Executive Secretary 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs 

General Counsel 

Chief Security Officer 

Chief Privacy Officer 

DHS OIG Liaison 

Transportation Security Administration

Assistant Secretary, TSA 

TSA Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS Program Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 
Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG 

web site at www.dhs.gov.

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind 

of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or 

operations, call the OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to Department of 

Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Attn: Office of Inspector 

General, Investigations Division – Hotline. The OIG seeks to protect the 

identity of each writer and caller.