IG-XX-XX 08 

 

 O 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Transportation Security Administration’s 

Efforts to Proactively Address Employee 

Concerns 

OIG-08-62 May May200820
 

 

 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

May 28, 2008 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General 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 responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) efforts to proactively 

address employee workplace problems, issues, and concerns. It is based on interviews with TSA 

employees and officials, 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/Abbreviations 

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

Background...........................................................................................................................................2 

Results of Audit .....................................................................................................................................6 

TSA’s Office of the Ombudsman ...................................................................................................7 

Implementation of the Integrated Conflict Management System.................................................. 12 

Implementation of the National Advisory Council........................................................................ 18 

Initiatives Are Not Fully Providing Intended Benefits.................................................................. 20 

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 21 

 Management Comments and OIG Analysis .................................................................................. 23 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology............................................................................28 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................................................30 

Appendix C: TSA Internal Action Offices Designated to Address Complaints.............................41 

Appendix D: TSA’s Integrated Conflict Management System Maturity Model............................42 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to this Report .............................................................................43 

Appendix F: Report Distribution ....................................................................................................44 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

FSD Federal Security Director 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

TSO Transportation Security Officer 
 

 

 

OIG 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Transportation Security Administration reports that a stable, mature, and 

experienced workforce is the most effective tool it has to meet its mission. 

Despite the value placed on the workforce, employees have expressed their 

concerns about how the agency operates by historically filing formal 

complaints at rates higher than other federal agencies of comparable size. 

Additionally, Transportation Security Administration employees at some 

airports have contacted the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Office of Inspector General, and the media to report their frustrations with 

local management’s lack of resolution of ongoing workplace problems. 

The Transportation Security Administration has taken proactive steps by 

establishing the Office of the Ombudsman, the Integrated Conflict 

Management System, and the National Advisory Council to help identify and 

address its employees’ workplace concerns. Our overall audit objective was 

to evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives. Despite the positive steps 

taken, the Transportation Security Administration could improve its initiatives 

by establishing more effective internal systems, processes, and controls. 

Specifically, the agency has not provided sufficient tools and guidance 

regarding the structures, authorities, and oversight responsibilities of each 

initiative, and has faced challenges in communicating the details of each to its 

workforce. 

Low employee morale continues to be an issue at some airports, contributing 

to the Transportation Security Administration’s 17% voluntary attrition rate. 

More than half of the employees we interviewed described the agency’s 

efforts to educate them on the various initiatives available to address their 

workplace concerns as “inadequate.” Accordingly, we are making six 

recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of the Transportation Security 

Administration to provide employees with sufficient tools, including clear 

guidance and better communication, on the structures, authorities, and 

oversight responsibilities of the initiatives we reviewed. The agency fully or 

partly concurred with five of the recommendations and has taken action to 

resolve four, which will remain open until implementation is completed. The 

agency did not provide sufficient information on its actions reported for one 

recommendation and did not concur with another. As such, both 

recommendations remain open and unresolved. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 1 
 

Background 

During the 1990s, many federal agencies experienced a sharp increase in the 

number of discrimination complaints filed. Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) programs and other similar, formal programs and structures have 

traditionally been used to protect federal employees and provide processes and 

venues to seek redress from prohibited personnel practices. However, federal 

agencies and employees have frequently criticized the formal processes and 

mechanisms for handling these complaints as ineffective, burdensome, timeconsuming, costly, and unnecessarily adversarial. 

As such, federal agencies have increasingly sought and adopted other, more 

flexible and more informal processes to assist with, replace, or augment the 

formal dispute resolution processes. For example, agencies may rely on a 

neutral third party to assist the disputants in reaching an amicable resolution 

through the use of various techniques, such as facilitative mediation. Such 

informal approaches help resolve workplace conflicts and improve 

communication and morale, while avoiding the cost, delay, and 

unpredictability of traditional adjudicatory processes. 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees have expressed 

their concerns about how the agency operates by historically filing formal 

complaints at rates significantly higher than other federal agencies of 

comparable size. Employees at some airports have contacted the Congress, 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), and the media to report their frustrations with local management’s lack 

of resolution of ongoing workplace problems. TSA employees, primarily 

Transportation Security Officers (TSOs, also known as airport screeners), 

have criticized the agency for discrimination, selective hiring practices, 

nepotism, management misconduct, and other questionable activities. 

Although TSA reports that a stable, mature, and experienced workforce is the 

most effective tool it has to meet its mission, the agency currently experiences 

a 17% voluntary attrition rate and low employee morale. 

TSA currently relies on several internal action offices to receive and manage 

employees’ formal complaints related to discrimination, disciplinary actions, 

and allegations of managerial misconduct. These offices include the Office of 

Civil Rights and Liberties; the Office of Inspection, Investigations Division; 

the Office of Security Operations, Management Inquiry Branch; and the 

Office of Human Capital. More information on these offices can be found in 

Appendix C. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 2 
 

 

Each TSA action office handles Exhibit 1: Prevalent Workplace certain types of formal employee 

• Inconsistent interpretation and 

implementation of TSA policies and 

procedures, such as operating 

procedures, leave policies, and 

overtime requirements 

• Concerns with local management, 

such as lack of trust, fear of 

retaliation, authoritarian management 

style, mistreatment, and disrespect 

• Poor communications and 

information sharing 

• Insufficient time to complete all 

work-related responsibilities, such as 

training, collateral duties, and 

Performance Accountability and 

Standards System documentation 

• Favoritism demonstrated through 

preferential scheduling and unfair 

promotion practices 

• Insufficient staffing at passenger 

checkpoints 

Concerns of TSOs Interviewed complaints, while the agency 

addresses informal employee 

concerns at the local level. For 

the purposes of this review, we 

defined an employee workplace 

concern as any expression of 

dissatisfaction regarding TSA 

operations that is within agency 

control, but not subject to 

existing internal administrative 

adjudication procedures, as a 

formal EEO complaint would be. 

Exhibit 1 shows some of the 

workplace concerns most 

frequently expressed by the TSA 

employees we interviewed. 

TSA’s Initiatives 

To proactively assist employees 

in raising and addressing their 

workplace concerns before they 

become formal complaints, TSA 

established the following programs and initiatives. 

1. Office of the Ombudsman 

The TSA Office of the Ombudsman is a confidential advocate for fair 

processes, procedures, and programs for all agency employees. In January 

2003, TSA created an “Organizational Ombudsman1

” in response to 

congressional concerns about the lack of collective bargaining rights for its 

employees. As of October 2007, the TSA Office of the Ombudsman had nine 

employees and reported to the TSA Special Counselor. The TSA 

Ombudsman acts informally to: 

• Answer inquiries and clarify policies; 

•	 Facilitate open communication and collaborative problem-solving by 

bringing parties together for dialogue; 

1

 According to A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds issued by the American Bar Association, an “Organizational 

Ombuds” ordinarily addresses problems presented by members, employees, or contractors of an entity concerning its 

actions or policies. The Organizational Ombuds facilitates fair and equitable resolution of concerns that arise within an 

entity and is authorized to advocate for change within the entity. Unlike a Legislative or Executive Ombuds, an 

Organizational Ombuds does not have the authority to hold the parent entity accountable. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 3 
•	 Serve as a channel for directing employee views, opinions, and feedback 

to TSA management; 

•	 Assist employees in identifying and evaluating options to resolve specific 

concerns and problems; and 

•	 When appropriate, directly resolve problems, using a variety of strategies 

and dispute resolution techniques. 

TSA employees contact the Ombudsman for a variety of reasons, such as 

discussing workplace concerns or to obtain information or clarification on 

existing policies and procedures. The Ombudsman also conducts airport site 

visits to increase its visibility within the agency, acquaint field employees 

with its roles and functions, and respond to employee requests for its 

intervention in helping to resolve workplace conflicts. 

2. Integrated Conflict Management System 

In November 2003, TSA established the Model Workplace Program Initiative 

to improve the overall workplace environment. This effort is guided by 

TSA’s Model Workplace Program Office and is accomplished through 

implementation of the Integrated Conflict Management System. In February 

2007, TSA mandated implementation of the Integrated Conflict Management 

System at all federal airports. As a result of more than 3 years experience 

with voluntary implementation at the local level, TSA reported it is currently 

moving toward greater agency-wide Integrated Conflict Management System 

sustainability and standardization. 

The Integrated Conflict Management System is designed to provide TSA 

employees with skills, structures, and support mechanisms to enhance 

communication, cooperative problem solving, and conflict management and 

prevention. TSA described the Integrated Conflict Management System as, “a 

key tool for creating an environment in which every TSA employee, at every 

location, and at every level, can raise issues, ideas, and concerns with 

confidence that they will be respectfully heard and responsibly addressed.” 

The Integrated Conflict Management System is not a separate program within 

the Model Workplace Program Office, but is rather a multidimensional 

approach pervasive throughout TSA. The Model Workplace Program Office 

helps foster, support, and integrate the design and local implementation of the 

Integrated Conflict Management System, and offers general guidance on the 

ways airports can provide employees with skills, structures, and 

organizational support that effectively promote model workplace values. The 

Model Workplace Program Office also maintains an online database of proven 

practices shared by local “Integrated Conflict Management System 

Coordinators,” and has developed a five-stage “Maturity Model” that airports 

can use to assess progress in building a local Integrated Conflict Management 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 4 
System program and identifying any areas for improvement. More 

information on TSA’s Integrated Conflict Management System Maturity 

Model can be found in Appendix D. 

Local TSA management is responsible for Integrated Conflict Management 

System implementation at each airport. To implement the Integrated Conflict 

Management System, the airport’s Federal Security Director (FSD) designates 

a local Coordinator to: 

•	 Create local structures that provide employees with options for raising 

and resolving workplace issues, and managing conflicts; 

•	 Track, analyze, and report on local workplace trends; 

•	 Serve as a resource for interest-based, problem solving mediation; 

•	 Provide regional Integrated Conflict Management System support to 

local airports; and 

•	 Serve as an internal consultant to airport management on local 

workplace issues, as well as the airport’s liaison with the Model 

Workplace Program Office and other internal TSA units, such as the 

Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of Civil Rights and 

Liberties. 

3. National Advisory Council 

In December 2005, the TSA Administrator announced to all FSDs the creation 

of the National Advisory Council as part of the Model Workplace Program 

Initiative. According to its charter, TSA created the National Advisory 

Council to promote greater job satisfaction, improve organizational 

effectiveness, and help lead widespread cultural change. Two main 

components constitute the current National Advisory Council structure: 

•	 The Transportation Security Officer Advisory Council, which 

represents TSA’s front-line screening workforce at the Nation’s 

airports and has 34 members; and 

•	 The Assistant Federal Security Director for Screening Advisory 

Council, which represents Assistant Federal Security Directors for 

Screening at the Nation’s airports and has 21 members. 

The National Advisory Council meets for a week each quarter to advise senior 

TSA leadership on current workplace issues specific to the national screening 

workforce. Through committees that address internal functions, the National 

Advisory Council recommends potential resolutions and actions. TSA’s 

Administrator, his Deputy, and other members of the agency’s senior 

leadership team spend considerable time with the National Advisory Council 

throughout the week, including participating at an out brief on the final day of 

the quarterly session. To sustain these efforts, dialogue among National 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 5 
Advisory Council members, the Administrator, and members of the senior 

leadership team continues via monthly conference calls between the quarterly 

National Advisory Council meetings. To facilitate communication between 

senior agency leadership and the entire TSA screening workforce, the 

National Advisory Council initiated the establishment of a national network of 

local airport points of contact, which TSA describes as a pivotal component of 

the National Advisory Council’s external communication strategy for direct 

and unfiltered feedback from the field. 

While these three proactive TSA initiatives are designed to assist employees 

with workplace concerns, each has its unique purpose or approach. The 

Office of the Ombudsman is a neutral third party that advocates fair processes 

and procedures for all agency employees, the Integrated Conflict Management 

System serves to keep local issues local, and the National Advisory Council 

addresses agency-wide issues of the screening workforce. In this context, our 

overall audit objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of TSA’s efforts to 

proactively identify and address employee workplace problems, issues, and 

concerns. More specific information on our objectives, scope, and 

methodology can be found in Appendix A. 

Results of Audit 

TSA could improve its current efforts to proactively identify and address 

employees’ workplace concerns by establishing more effective internal 

systems, processes, and controls. Specifically, the agency has not provided 

sufficient tools and clear guidance on the structures, authorities, and oversight 

responsibilities of the three proactive initiatives we reviewed: 

• Office of the Ombudsman; 

• Integrated Conflict Management System; and 

• National Advisory Council. 

TSA also has faced challenges in effectively communicating the details of the 

various internal options currently available for employees to address their 

workplace concerns to its workforce. As a result, employees are 

underutilizing the initiatives, and longstanding workplace issues may be 

unresolved at some locations. This contributes to further employee 

workplace dissatisfaction and employee turnover, which could adversely 

affect the effectiveness of TSA’s security screening function. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 6 
TSA’s Office of the Ombudsman 

TSA’s Office of Ombudsman could improve in assisting employees with their 

workplace issues and concerns. Many employees are either unaware of or 

lack trust and confidence in the Ombudsman’s functions. The Ombudsman’s 

airport site visits also could be more effective in increasing its visibility within 

the agency, acquainting employees with its functions, and responding to 

requests for intervention. Further, the Ombudsman does not adequately track 

and analyze employee contact data to identify trends, assist in planning airport 

site visits, and report on the office’s significant activities and 

accomplishments. 

Employees Lack Awareness, Trust, and Confidence in the Ombudsman’s 

Services 

TSA employees demonstrated limited knowledge and awareness of the 

Ombudsman’s services. Employees we interviewed said that TSA could be 

more effective in educating the workforce about the Ombudsman’s role in 

assisting with workplace concerns. For example: 

•	 One-third of the employees were not aware of the Ombudsman’s role, 

functions, and services. 

•	 Nearly two-thirds of the employees believed the Office of the 

Ombudsman’s education efforts were ineffective in communicating 

information about its functions and services. 

•	 Nearly three-quarters of the employees believed the Ombudsman’s 

education efforts were ineffective in providing information about other 

channels and procedures within TSA, apart from the Ombudsman, for 

addressing workplace problems, issues, and concerns. 

Due to the size and complexity of the agency, TSA has faced challenges in 

communicating the Ombudsman’s role and services to the workforce. 

Typically, airport management disseminates information about TSA’s 

proactive programs and initiatives to the local workforce through such 

methods as mass emails, bulletin board postings, internal publications, and 

informal briefings. The Office of the Ombudsman also has recently taken 

steps to raise and maintain awareness of its services. For example, the 

Ombudsman distributed a supply of Ombudsman brochures to all FSDs 

accompanied by a message encouraging airports to place at least one poster 

advertising the Ombudsman services in a high employee traffic area. 

However, the approximately 43,000 passenger and baggage screeners who 

compose the majority of TSA’s 50,000 employees are stationed at airport 

checkpoints without immediate access to the flow of automated and hard copy 

information. Employees absent from their local shift briefings also may not 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 7 
receive information on workplace initiatives, such as the Ombudsman’s 

services, that are discussed. 

Some employees described their fear of retaliation by local management if 

they presented issues to the Ombudsman. At every airport we visited, and 

also within TSA Headquarters, management regularly stressed that an 

employee’s chain of command was the preferred first option for pursuing 

resolution of a workplace problem, issue, or concern. Employees we 

interviewed said that managers discouraged them from consulting the 

Ombudsman during airport site visits. Other employees believed local 

management was aware of employee communications with visitors and feared 

repercussions if they contacted the Ombudsman with their concerns. 

Employees also feared a lack of confidentiality at the Ombudsman’s meetings. 

For example: 

•	 At one airport, the FSD and a member of the airport's Human 

Resource staff reportedly reprimanded an employee for 

communicating with the Ombudsman about an issue. The employee 

reported the reprimand to the Ombudsman, who contacted the FSD to 

express displeasure with the FSD's action. The employee was 

allegedly reprimanded again for the second communication with the 

Ombudsman. The Ombudsman finally resolved the matter with the 

help of the airport's Area Director. 

•	 At another airport, several employees reported that a screening 

manager was taking the names of employees as they entered focus 

group meetings. A screening manager also reportedly advised one 

employee being considered for a promotion that attending the 

Ombudsman’s meeting “was a career move,” implying that it could 

threaten the screener’s advancement. 

•	 The Ombudsman mentioned that some airport employees reported that 

they did not trust some of their co-workers present at the 

Ombudsman’s meetings and were less likely to publicly voice their 

viewpoints, for fear the information and their identity would be 

relayed to management. 

Further, at each airport we visited, employees expressed a lack of confidence 

in the Ombudsman’s ability to help resolve their workplace issues. Twothirds of the employees we interviewed, who had contacted the Ombudsman 

for assistance, said they were dissatisfied with the quality of service and 

outcomes. More than half of those respondents said that, based on their prior 

experiences and the lack of corrective actions to address their issues, they 

would not refer other TSA employees to the Ombudsman for help. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 8 
Ombudsman is Hindered in Conducting Site Visits and Ensuring Results 

The Office of the Ombudsman has lacked the independence to conduct its site 

visits unhindered. Where visits have been carried out, the Ombudsman has 

not consistently documented or followed up to ensure implementation of 

recommended solutions to the problems identified. 

Site visits are a critical tool for the Ombudsman to conduct outreach to 

employees and identify and address employee workplace concerns. However, 

senior TSA officials, Headquarters-based Area Directors, and some FSDs 

have interfered with some of the Ombudsman’s airport site visit plans. For 

example, a TSA official said that, at times, Area Directors persuaded the 

agency to postpone the Ombudsman’s site visits. Also, in July 2007, the 

Office of Special Counselor discontinued the Ombudsman’s scheduled airport 

visits for the remainder of the calendar year. TSA officials said that, in 

addition to extra security concerns at the airports during peak summer months, 

airport visits by TSA's Ombudsman staff, the DHS OIG, and other entities 

were perceived by both TSA Headquarters and local airport management as 

disruptive to airport operations. 

Similarly, employees at several airports reported that local management 

obstructed some of the Ombudsman’s activities during site visits. For 

example, employees told the Ombudsman that managers gave them the wrong 

room number for Ombudsman meetings, informed them of the meetings at the 

last minute, and encouraged them not to attend some meetings. 

In accomplishing its site visits, the Ombudsman has not consistently 

suggested corrective actions in trip reports as a means of making airport 

leadership accountable for addressing the issues identified. The Ombudsman 

typically concludes each site visit by conducting an out brief with the local 

FSD, providing an oral assessment of what the team observed, and discussing 

suggestions for problem resolution. Subsequently, the Ombudsman 

documents the results of the visit in a report within 15 days of the trip’s 

completion. However, based on our review, only 2 of the 20 trip reports for 

the 8 airports we visited contained written recommendations for the FSDs’ 

consideration. TSA officials said there has always been a struggle about the 

inclusion of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in trip reports. The agency 

discontinued documenting suggested corrective actions to management in the 

reports because the documents are accessible to the public and may be used as 

support for removing an FSD. 

Even where recommendations are documented, the Office of the Ombudsman 

does not consistently follow up to determine whether local management has 

responded to the concerns raised during its site visits. The Ombudsman 

reported conducting approximately 172 visits to airports since June 2003. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 9 
 

Based on our review of 20 trip reports for the 8 airports we visited, as well as 

interviews with 320 TSA airport employees, local management rarely 

implemented change directly related to the Ombudsman’s site visits and 

suggested corrective actions. Only 49% of the employees we interviewed 

were aware of the Ombudsman’s previous visits to their airport, and just 12% 

of those believed that positive changes or corrective actions had resulted from 

those visits. 

The Ombudsman’s limited ability to conduct site visits and ensure that 

corrective actions are implemented can be attributed to the office’s lack of 

authority and independence. According to A Guide for Federal Employee 

Ombuds, referred to herein as The Guide,2

 the independence of an 

Ombudsman is a fundamental prerequisite to effective operations. To ensure 

independence, the federal Ombudsman should, if possible, report and have 

direct access to the highest agency official. TSA has not established the 

Office of the Ombudsman independently with direct access to the highest 

agency official and therefore the status and authority to be effective. TSA’s 

Ombudsman reports to the Office of Special Counselor, not the Assistant 

Administrator. 

TSA’s Ombudsman also does not have a charter or official document that 

describes its authority, roles, and responsibilities. According to the Guide, an 

entity establishing an Ombudsman should do so pursuant to a legislative 

enactment, or a publicly available written charter, which clearly sets forth its 

role and jurisdiction. The only written support the Ombudsman provided 

regarding the development of the office’s roles, responsibilities, and authority 

was a press release from the Acting TSA Administrator introducing an agency 

Ombudsman to all employees. The press release did not provide details about 

the office’s functions and services. TSA also could not provide 

documentation of the Ombudsman’s authority to operate unfettered and 

ensure implementation of corrective actions recommended as a result of its 

site visits. 

The Ombudsman Is Not Providing Useful Agency-wide Trends and 

Analysis 

TSA’s Ombudsman does not sufficiently track and analyze incoming 

employee contact data to identify patterns and trends, assist in planning airport 

site visits, or produce useful reports highlighting significant activities and 

accomplishments. According to the Standards for the Establishment and 

Operations of Ombuds Offices, issued by the American Bar Association, 

2 A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds, developed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsman and the Federal 

Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group Steering Committee, builds upon the Standards for the 

Establishment and Operations of Ombuds Offices issued by the American Bar Association in February 2004. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 10 
 

February 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman should be accountable for its 

activities and results, as well as identifying complaint patterns and trends. 

TSA’s Ombudsman does not have a single system to sufficiently track and 

analyze incoming employee contact data. Currently, the Ombudsman relies 

on the Inquiry Management System to collect employee contact data, which 

could potentially be valuable for the Ombudsman in identifying and analyzing 

employee workplace concerns. The Inquiry Management System database is 

cumbersome and does not have features to support the data analysis necessary 

to identify trends. In order to generate any useful trend analyses, a user must 

transfer data from the Inquiry Management System into other software and 

run the appropriate filters. According to the Ombudsman, this process is very 

time-consuming and requires specialized training and knowledge to use the 

software for additional analysis. At the time of our audit, the Program 

Assistant position responsible for manually manipulating and analyzing 

Inquiry Management System data had been vacant since December 2006. 

The Ombudsman has not incorporated historical data in the Inquiry 

Management System to support its planning or provide a complete picture of 

its operational effectiveness over the years. Before TSA implemented the 

Inquiry Management System in April 2005, the Ombudsman maintained 

employee contact data in Microsoft Excel. The Ombudsman has not 

transferred all Excel data collected prior to April 2005 to the Inquiry 

Management System. The separate data files make a simple request for 

comprehensive employee contact data burdensome. We requested all 

employee contact data for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2007, which the 

Ombudsman provided in 42 different Excel spreadsheets. We had to 

manually merge and analyze the data to identify Ombudsman activities and 

trends for that timeframe. This exercise was very time-consuming and 

challenging, and yielded incomplete results. 

Without good historical data and analysis, the Office of the Ombudsman has 

been unable to prepare an annual business plan or report on its significant 

activities and accomplishments to demonstrate success in proactively 

resolving employees’ workplace concerns. The Standards for the 

Establishment and Operations of Ombuds Offices advises that an Ombudsman 

should issue and publish periodic reports summarizing its findings and 

activities to demonstrate accountability. Reports may include statistical 

information about the contacts with the Ombudsman, subjects the 

Ombudsman addressed, or evaluation by complainants, and may be developed 

annually, bi-annually, or more frequently. 

Although the Ombudsman produces monthly and quarterly reports based on 

Inquiry Management System data, these reports do not describe the 

Ombudsman’s primary activities, particularly the types of employee contacts 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 11 
that were resolved, and the number of formal complaints that were prevented. 

The Ombudsman recently initiated an anonymous survey mechanism to 

collect feedback from individuals who contacted the office about their level of 

satisfaction with the services offered and provided. However, the survey is 

not mandatory, is inconsistently administered, and therefore does not fully 

reflect employee views of the Ombudsman’s services. 

Implementation of the Integrated Conflict Management System 

Although TSA has taken a significant step toward improving its workplace 

environment by adopting the Model Workplace Program Initiative and 

developing the Integrated Conflict Management System for agency-wide 

implementation, TSA does not support effective local Integrated Conflict 

Management System implementation. The agency does not currently ensure 

that airports use the range of Integrated Conflict Management System 

components available to help address employees’ workplace concerns. 

Furthermore, TSA does not adequately promote local Integrated Conflict 

Management System options to its workforce. As a result, TSA employees 

may not have access to effective local opportunities to raise and address their 

workplace concerns and obtain the full benefits of a model workplace culture 

nationwide. 

TSA Does Not Ensure Effective Local Integrated Conflict Management 

System Implementation 

TSA management at the eight airports we visited demonstrated different 

degrees of commitment to local Integrated Conflict Management System 

implementation, which may not effectively support the program. TSA is 

building the Integrated Conflict Management System both locally and 

nationally to create an organizational culture in which every employee can 

raise issues, ideas, and concerns with confidence that they will be respectfully 

heard and addressed. However, some local managers implement the 

Integrated Conflict Management System at varying levels, based on the time 

and personnel resources they are willing to devote to this effort. 

Management at some of the locations we visited said that local Integrated 

Conflict Management System implementation represents an additional 

administrative burden, which airports may not have the personnel to support. 

Local managers said that TSA directed airports to designate a local Integrated 

Conflict Management System Coordinator without providing specific tools or 

authorizing a dedicated position to perform the associated functions. 

Therefore, some managers have chosen to assign a full-time TSO or 

administrative employee to serve collateral duty as the local Integrated 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 12 
Conflict Management System Coordinator to meet TSA’s implementation 

mandate. For example: 

•	 At two airports visited, the collateral duty Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinators said they did not have sufficient time 

during regular work hours to perform the key Integrated Conflict 

Management System-related duties, such as tracking the status of 

employees’ workplace issues, conducting workforce outreach, or 

regularly participating in monthly Integrated Conflict Management 

System Coordinator conference calls. 

•	 At one large airport, current management downgraded its full-time 

Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinator position to a parttime, collateral duty assignment. The assigned individual is currently 

employed full-time in an administrative position with two other collateral 

duty assignments. 

TSA does not provide sufficient tools and guidance to ensure airport 

management devotes adequate support for the implementation and assessment 

local Integrated Conflict Management System programs. Although the Model 

Workplace Program Office provides general guidance on setting goals and 

achieving outcomes, actual implementation of the Integrated Conflict 

Management System, including the dedication of program resources, is the 

responsibility of local airport management. The Model Workplace Program 

Office has no authority, such as that provided in a TSA management directive, 

over how local Integrated Conflict Management System programs are 

structured and implemented. Because it is outside of the Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinators’ chain of command, the Model Workplace 

Program Office does not conduct site visits to assess the status of airports’ 

local Integrated Conflict Management System programs and is unable to 

compel local coordinators to participate in any of the Integrated Conflict 

Management System-related activities it sponsors, such as monthly 

conference calls. 

Further, TSA does not ensure that airports track and report the number or 

status of the workplace issues raised through the Integrated Conflict 

Management System to determine whether local management is timely and 

appropriately responding to its employees’ concerns. Among the Integrated 

Conflict Management System Coordinators’ duties and responsibilities are 

tracking, analyzing, advising, and reporting workplace trends to leadership, 

and providing information on organizational and local workplace issues. Only 

three of the eight airports we visited were able to provide sufficient evidence 

that they were actively tracking the status of issues raised by their employees 

using a database or other internal system. The local Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinator was responsible for maintaining the local 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 13 
tracking system at two of these locations, while the local employee council 

maintained this system at the third location. 

A lack of commitment to the Integrated Conflict Management System by 

leadership at any level can present a serious challenge to the agency’s efforts 

to establish a model workplace culture nationwide. To improve local airport 

leadership’s understanding of and support for model workplace concepts, 

Model Workplace Program Office staff facilitated a 2-day interactive 

workshop on “Building a High Performing Workplace” as part of a 4-week 

“FSD Academy” for new incoming FSDs, launched by TSA’s Office of 

Security Operations in October 2007. Although 20 new FSDs attended this 

inaugural program, which included a section on the Integrated Conflict 

Management System structure, TSA provided no documented evidence to 

support the agency’s intent to require current FSDs to participate in the entire 

program or at least in the Model Workplace Program Office’s workshop. 

TSA Should Ensure Effective Local Use of Integrated Conflict 

Management System Components 

Local TSA managers do not make effective use of Integrated Conflict 

Management System skills, structures, and support mechanisms available to 

enhance communication and cooperative problem solving. As shown in 

Exhibit 2, the Model Workplace Program Office encourages airports to use an 

array of mechanisms for employees to raise and address their workplace 

concerns locally through the Integrated Conflict Management System. 

However, airports may not be using these components as much or as 

effectively as possible to assist employees with problem resolution. For 

example: 

•	 Employee Advisory 

Councils: Some airports 

have not established formal 

employee advisory councils 

to assist in addressing 

employee concerns. Model 

Workplace Program Office 

guidance notes the 

importance of developing a 

charter for local employee 

councils and explains that a 

charter helps establish the 

council as a continuing part 

of an airport’s conflict 

management system rather 

than a temporary result of 

management action. 

Exhibit 2: Available Integrated 

Conflict Management System 

Elements 

•	 Employee advisory councils 

•	 Employee concern 

forms/suggestion box programs 

•	 Peer conflict coaching 

•	 Training in conflict management 

and cooperative problem solving 

•	 Safety action teams 

•	 Group “Town Hall” meetings with 

airport leadership 

•	 Hardship and scheduling 

committees 

•	 Promotion boards 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 14 
Although all eight airports in our sample had some form of local 

employee council, two were operating without a formal charter 

documenting their scope of responsibilities, composition, meeting 

schedule, and other internal guidelines. Similarly, a recent TSA 

survey of FSDs showed that 93% of all responding locations used 

employee councils, but only 76% of those had formal charters. 

•	 Concern Forms: Airports do not always use concern forms to 

effectively assist with soliciting and responding to workforce issues as 

intended. The Model Workplace Program Office advises that concern 

forms be used as an Integrated Conflict Management System tool for 

TSA employees to raise both individual and organizational workplace 

issues. It further suggests that concern forms be designed so that 

employees can be confident that their submissions will be read, 

researched, and addressed. Only five of the eight locations we visited 

made such forms available to solicit employee feedback. TSA’s 

survey of airport FSDs showed that only 52% of all responding 

airports were using concern forms. 

Some TSA employees may be reluctant to use concern forms because 

they are not comfortable with the manner in which they are handled. 

Some employees we interviewed said the individual designated to 

respond to concern forms did not sufficiently address the issues raised, 

was too closely connected to management, or sometimes failed to 

handle the forms confidentially. For example, employees at one 

airport said that concern forms, even when marked confidential, were 

discussed in meetings and shared with the workforce. 

•	 Peer Conflict Coaching: TSA does not ensure that qualified conflict 

coaches are made available at field locations, even though the Model 

Workplace Program Office recommends that airports include peer 

conflict coaching as another key component of a local Integrated 

Conflict Management System program. Among other important roles, 

conflict coaches are specially trained, collateral duty TSA employees 

who provide confidential guidance and information to their peers 

regarding local conflict management options. Only three of the 

airports we visited were actively using qualified conflict coaches as 

part of their Integrated Conflict Management System programs. At a 

fourth airport, employees were being trained as conflict coaches, but 

the program was not yet implemented. At a fifth airport, employees 

were trained as conflict coaches, but the airport never implemented 

such coaching as a component of its local Integrated Conflict 

Management System. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 15 
•	 Training: Airport management is not ensuring that required Integrated 

Conflict Management System training is provided to its employees. 

Although Model Workplace Program Office staff said that 

participation in the Conflict Management Essentials course is 

mandatory for the entire TSA workforce, more than 20% of the 

employees we interviewed said they had not taken this training. The 

Model Workplace Program Office also sponsors Cooperative Problem 

Solving for Managers, which is an interactive course to help TSA 

management personnel build proactive, practical, and usable skills in 

cooperative problem solving and conflict management. Only 37% of 

all airports responding to TSA’s recent survey said that all of their 

security managers had received this training. 

Although we observed wide variations regarding how airports were 

implementing the Integrated Conflict Management System, we identified one 

location where the Integrated Conflict Management System program 

incorporated many of the elements advocated by the Model Workplace 

Program Office to support a more robust model workplace culture. Among 

other components, this airport’s Integrated Conflict Management System 

consists of a chartered employee advisory council, concern forms, Town Hall 

meetings with the FSD, a suggestion box program, and peer conflict coaching. 

Furthermore, the full-time Integrated Conflict Management System 

Coordinator is actively supported by airport management, has a written 

implementation plan to guide future Integrated Conflict Management System 

development, and ensures that all new employees receive Conflict 

Management Essentials training during orientation. The Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinator also uses an internal system to track the 

status of workplace issues raised by local employees, and publishes a monthly 

newsletter to support the broad dissemination of outcomes to the workforce. 

The differences we identified can be attributed to the fact that local Integrated 

Conflict Management System activities are at the discretion of airport 

management. Also, Integrated Conflict Management System implementation 

currently lacks an appropriate degree of oversight and accountability beyond 

the FSD level, and the Model Workplace Program Office has not yet 

established performance metrics by which TSA can measure the effectiveness 

of all local Integrated Conflict Management System programs. 

TSA Does Not Ensure Employee Awareness and Use of the Integrated 

Conflict Management System Locally 

As with the Ombudsman, TSA employees we interviewed had limited 

awareness of, engagement with, and confidence in current Integrated Conflict 

Management System concepts and practices as a local option available to help 

address their workplace concerns. While most of the employees had some 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 16 
knowledge of the purpose, goals, and elements of TSA’s Integrated Conflict 

Management System, nearly half said their airports’ efforts to provide them 

with this information were ineffective. 

Although half of the employees we interviewed expressed an overall 

dissatisfaction with their current work environment, more than 80% said they 

had never initiated any direct contact with their local Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinators to discuss or resolve a workplace problem, 

issue, or concern. Underscoring their lack of awareness, only 41% of the 

employees were able to correctly identify their airport’s current Integrated 

Conflict Management System Coordinator by name. 

Not all of the Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinators we 

interviewed were conducting effective outreach to their local workforce, 

which contributed to the lack of employee engagement. Although most 

coordinators we interviewed said that they communicate information about 

the Integrated Conflict Management System to employees through 

newsletters, emails, bulletin boards, or employee councils, only three of the 

eight claimed to be actively introducing the Integrated Conflict Management 

System as part of orientation for new hires. Further, none provided 

documented evidence that they currently follow a formal plan for conducting 

employee outreach. Three Integrated Conflict Management System 

Coordinators explicitly recognized the need to improve their efforts to 

increase Integrated Conflict Management System awareness among the local 

workforce. 

Our interviews revealed that some TSA employees were reluctant to use the 

Integrated Conflict Management System as a local option for raising and 

addressing their workplace concerns. At every airport we visited, and within 

TSA Headquarters, management regularly stressed that an employee’s chain 

of command is the preferred first option for pursuing resolution of a 

workplace problem, issue, or concern, discouraging the use of alternative 

procedures, such as the Integrated Conflict Management System. Of the 

employees we interviewed who had previously initiated contact with their 

local Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinator to address 

workplace concerns, 41% were dissatisfied with the quality of services 

provided. Some employees were not confident that their local Integrated 

Conflict Management System programs were yielding positive outcomes. 

Others questioned their Integrated Conflict Management System programs’ 

independence from airport management and suggested that a lack of 

confidentiality inherent in the Integrated Conflict Management System 

contributed to their reluctance to bring any workplace concerns forward. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 17 
Implementation of the National Advisory Council 

The National Advisory Council could be more effective in identifying and 

communicating agency-wide workforce issues to senior leadership. TSA has 

not effectively communicated the National Advisory Council’s mission, 

purpose, and outcomes to National Advisory Council members, points of 

contact, and the screening workforce to ensure that all employees are fully 

represented and benefit from its efforts. TSA employees, including some 

National Advisory Council members, were insufficiently aware of, or lacked 

confidence in the National Advisory Council. More than half of the 

employees we interviewed said that they were not aware of the overall 

mission, functions, and goals of the National Advisory Council. More than 

half of the employees also said that the National Advisory Council was 

ineffective in promoting greater job satisfaction and improving organizational 

effectiveness. For example, three Assistant FSD for Screening Advisory 

Council field points of contact did not view the National Advisory Council as 

a useful channel for raising their workplace issues to TSA leadership and said 

they used other, more direct avenues within TSA for bringing their issues to 

the attention of Headquarters’ leadership. 

Although the National Advisory Council has contributed to major 

developments in areas having considerable impact on frontline employees, 

such as wages, performance measurement, training, and standard operating 

procedures, the National Advisory Council’s field support structure has not 

been sufficiently developed to effectively accomplish its mission. TSA relies 

on airport employees to constitute a national network of field points of contact 

to supplement the TSO Advisory Council and Assistant FSD for Screening 

Advisory Council; however, the network is still not complete. Based on our 

review of TSA records, 16 of 136 TSO Advisory Council field points of 

contact positions, and 17 of 126 Assistant FSD for Screening Advisory 

Council field points of contact positions remained vacant. According to TSA 

officials, the National Advisory Council is still in the process of testing and 

establishing how to create and best utilize the extensive network given the 

challenges of staffing, connectivity, and 24-hour-per-day operations in the 

field. 

TSA also has not ensured that field points of contact understand their roles 

and are sufficiently engaged in supporting the initiative. Most National 

Advisory Council field points of contact at the airports we visited 

demonstrated insufficient knowledge of their National Advisory Councilrelated roles and responsibilities. As such, most points of contact were not 

actively engaged in raising local employee concerns to their National 

Advisory Council members for consideration, or in communicating 

information from their National Advisory Council members to the local 

workforce. For example: 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 18 
•	 At five of the eight airports visited, TSO Advisory Council field points 

of contact reported a lack of awareness of the National Advisory 

Council’s activities and mission, as well as their roles and 

responsibilities as points of contact. 

•	 Some field points of contact explained that their TSO Advisory 

Council members never provided them guidance on the National 

Advisory Council’s mission or their own expected roles and 

responsibilities. 

•	 Two points of contact did not know the Assistant FSD for Screening 

Advisory Council members with whom they were to coordinate on 

employee workplace issues. 

•	 One point of contact reported never having received any information 

from his Assistant FSD for Screening Advisory Council member on 

the outcomes of the quarterly meetings or their accomplishments. 

•	 Another employee was appointed as a field point of contact more than 

1 year prior to our visit, but still had not been contacted by his TSO 

Advisory Council member for input on workforce concerns. 

In addition to providing insufficient guidance, TSA has not ensured that 

National Advisory Council members and field points of contact are provided 

adequate time to fulfill their National Advisory Council roles. According to 

the TSO Advisory Council charter, members are to gain input, ideas, and 

concerns from the TSA workforce while keeping employees informed of the 

National Advisory Council’s activities, such as quarterly meetings and their 

outcomes. Although TSA encourages airport FSDs to allow members 4 hours 

per week to perform National Advisory Council-related duties, most of the 

TSO Advisory Council members we interviewed said that the amount of time 

they were provided was not enough to fulfill this role. Some said they used 

personal time or switched shifts to carry out their National Advisory Council 

responsibilities. One point of contact competed for the use of a limited 

number of computers with Internet access at his location to accomplish his 

duties. 

The points of contact are to facilitate communication between the National 

Advisory Council members and the local employees; however, TSA does not 

ensure that National Advisory Council members and the field points of 

contact effectively coordinate with local Integrated Conflict Management 

System initiatives, such as employee councils. Although TSA stresses the 

importance of integrated communication and cross-functional approaches to 

problem solving to achieve organizational success, only three of the eight 

National Advisory Council field points of contact we interviewed are either 

members of their airports’ local employee councils or regularly interact with 

their local Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinators. One point 

of contact, who is also a member of his airport’s local employee council, 

confirmed the benefit of his dual roles by explaining that he briefs the local 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 19 
 

employee council on agency-wide issues that the National Advisory Council 

is working on so the local employee council can focus its time and efforts on 

addressing more localized issues. 

Initiatives Are Not Fully Providing Intended Benefits 

Because TSA has not effectively communicated or provided sufficient tools 

and guidance regarding the three initiatives reviewed, employees are not fully 

benefiting from these options to assist them with their workplace concerns. 

Where the initiatives were used, employees at times expressed dissatisfaction 

with outcomes and a lack of confidence in their ability to help resolve their 

workplace issues. As such, employees are underutilizing the programs, 

allowing longstanding concerns to remain among the workforce at some 

locations. For example, 

•	 Some employees at one airport said that ongoing workplace issues, 

such as a hostile work environment and the inconsistent application of 

TSA’s standard operating procedures, were a major contributing factor 

to low employee morale, despite reporting these concerns to the 

Ombudsman during a prior site visit. 

•	 The Ombudsman visited another airport in 2005 and 2006, and 

reported low employee morale, insufficient time allowed for 

employees to meet TSA’s weekly training requirement, fear of 

managerial retaliation, and favoritism in promotion practices and 

disciplinary matters. During our visit to this airport in 2007, 

employees said these same issues remained a significant distraction. 

•	 Some employees said that their local Integrated Conflict Management 

System was ineffective in resolving ongoing workplace concerns. 

•	 One National Advisory Council point of contact said that there was not 

a strong National Advisory Council presence at his airport and did not 

believe that common “types” of complaints and issues are always 

addressed through this council. Without a strong National Advisory 

Council presence, the agency may be missing opportunities to identify 

and bring important employee concerns to the attention of senior 

agency leadership. 

By not successfully addressing such longstanding workplace issues, these 

proactive programs may provide false hope and have the unanticipated effects 

of heightening employee dissatisfaction and further undermining morale. 

Given their frustration, employees may be distracted and less focused on their 

security and screening responsibilities. These factors could in turn adversely 

affect TSA’s overall transportation security mission by increasing turnover 

and decreasing workforce stability. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 20 
 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary of the Transportation Security 

Administration: 

•	 Recommendation #1: Realign the Office of the Ombudsman so that it 

reports directly to the Assistant Secretary, thus better ensuring its 

independence within the organization. 

•	 Recommendation #2: Establish an explicit policy or “charter” that 

clearly sets forth the Office of the Ombudsman’s role, authority, 

responsibility, and jurisdiction. This should include discussion of the 

authorities provided to the Ombudsman to: 

- Plan and execute all necessary activities, including site visits, free 

from interference; 

- Suggest corrective actions to airports and Area Directors as a result of 

its activities; and 

- Follow up with Transportation Security Administration officials 

responsible for airport operations to ensure that corrective actions are 

implemented. 

•	 Recommendation #3: Ensure that the agency: 

- Improves the Inquiry Management System or acquires a system 

capable of performing the necessary data manipulation and analysis 

needed to track issues, identify trends, and generate value-added 

management reports; and 

- Provides Federal Security Directors with useful Ombudsman data for 

their respective airports. 

•	 Recommendation #4: Issue a Management Directive that clearly sets 

forth the purpose, responsibilities, policies, and procedures for 

consistently implementing and assessing the Integrated Conflict 

Management System to ensure that: 

- Sufficient resources are made available to effectively and more 

consistently implement the Integrated Conflict Management System 

locally. Accordingly, local management should consider the size of 

the workforce, the nature of the designated Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinator’s full-time responsibilities, and any 

existing collateral duty assignments when deciding how to structure, 

position, and fill this critical position within the local organization; 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 21 
- The Model Workplace Program Office establishes performance 

metrics to identify and assess the effectiveness of the program and 

potential areas for improvement; and 

- The Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinators develop 

and use internal systems to track the status of employee concerns, 

analyze the data to identify workforce trends, and regularly report the 

results to provide information on local workplace issues to local 

leadership and Transportation Security Administration Headquarters. 

•	 Recommendation #5: Issue a Management Directive or revise the 

National Advisory Council’s charters to ensure that: 

- TSA fills all points of contact positions nationwide; 

- Points of contact are provided specific guidance to better understand 

their roles and responsibilities for obtaining feedback on workplace 

issues and concerns from the local workforce and communicating that 

information to their designated National Advisory Council members; 

- National Advisory Council members and points of contact at the 

airports are allowed adequate time to fulfill assigned roles in the 

National Advisory Council; 

- National Advisory Council members routinely contact their designated 

field points of contact to facilitate a continued exchange of information 

on agency-wide workplace issues; and 

- National Advisory Council members and the field points of contact 

effectively coordinate with local Integrated Conflict Management 

System initiatives, such as employee councils, to provide integrated 

communication and cross-functional approaches to problem solving 

and achieve organizational success. 

•	 Recommendation #6: Ensure that appropriate actions are taken to use all 

available options to better publicize and effectively inform the workforce 

of the services available from the Office of the Ombudsman, the Model 

Workplace Program initiative and Integrated Conflict Management 

System, and the National Advisory Council. For example, the agency 

could strengthen its efforts by including information on these initiatives in 

communications emanating from related programs, providing reminders 

on every employee’s paycheck, and delivering details using the agency’s 

Online Learning Center for current and incoming employees. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 22 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

TSA generally concurred with the recommendations in the report. TSA did 

not concur with the OIG conclusion that the Office of the Ombudsman would 

be a more effective resource to employees if independently structured in the 

organization. 

TSA’s response provided many details of how the agency has made 

significant progress in building the foundation for a more positive and stable 

workplace environment through both formal and informal means. We 

recognize TSA’s current proactive initiatives represent an agency-wide system 

that is still maturing to provide diverse informal avenues for employees to 

address their workplace concerns. TSA further noted the implementation of 

additional formal channels for resolving problems in the workplace, including 

the new Peer Review grievance process and the Alternative Resolution to 

Conflict Program of the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. 

We commend TSA for implementing various formal options for employees to 

address their workplace issues, problems, and concerns. Due to resource and 

scope limitations, our audit could not address the full range of TSA’s efforts 

in this area. As such, our report noted that TSA relies on several internal 

“action offices” to receive and manage employees’ formal complaints. We 

defined an employee workplace concern as any expression of dissatisfaction 

regarding TSA operations within agency control but not subject to existing 

administrative adjudication procedures, such as an EEO complaint or an 

employee grievance. As such, any discussion of formal channels of 

resolution, regardless of their impact on the TSA workforce, would have been 

misplaced in this report. 

In citing TSA’s self-reported attrition rate in this report, we offer no opinion 

on the acceptability or appropriateness of the statistic. We merely assert that 

low employee morale is a factor contributing to employee turnover, a 

relationship that was confirmed during our interviews with more than 300 

security screeners. Our findings suggest that increasing the effectiveness of 

the three initiatives reviewed will help reduce workplace conflict and 

employee dissatisfaction, thereby improving individual and collective morale 

among the screening workforce. 

The report provides background on the frequency with which TSA employees 

have filed formal complaints relative to other federal agencies in order to help 

establish the historical scope of TSA’s challenges in this area. This 

information was provided for context to support the importance of the 

agency’s efforts to address the concerns of its workforce through informal 

means. It was not relevant to include statistics or the results of other agencies’ 

activities to address formal workplace complaints in a report that exclusively 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 23 
focused on TSA’s unique efforts to proactively address its employees’ 

workplace concerns through informal means. 

Finally, because of limited time and resources, it was not possible for us to 

interview a larger sample of screeners at more locations so that the project 

results could be statistically applicable to the entire TSA screening workforce. 

We selected and visited airports to determine the extent to which longstanding workforce concerns previously reported to the TSA Ombudsman, the 

Congress, the DHS OIG, and the media had been resolved. Given the level of 

attention the selected airports received during the past several years, we 

expected to identify and report more favorable conditions at these locations. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 1: 

TSA does not concur and believes the current structure and placement of its 

Office of Ombudsman is appropriate given its role as an informal avenue for 

employees to address their workplace concerns. TSA chose not to follow the 

suggestion of the American Bar Association’s Guide for Federal Employee 

Ombuds – A Supplement to and Annotation of the Standards for the 

Establishment and Operations of Ombuds Offices, that its Ombudsman report 

and have direct access to the highest agency official. Instead, TSA uses an 

organizational ombudsman that reports directly to the TSA Special Counselor, 

an Assistant Administrator equivalent position who has direct access to the 

Assistant Secretary. Through this organizational structure, TSA asserts that 

the Office of Special Counselor is able to raise employee issues received 

through the Office of Ombudsman to senior agency leadership. 

OIG Evaluation: We would like TSA to reconsider implementing our 

recommendation. We disagree that the Ombudsman’s current alignment 

ensures that it is not unduly influenced by other organizational components. 

Evidence obtained during our audit supports our conclusion that TSA’s 

Ombudsman has experienced a progressively diminished role within the 

agency, which has rendered it a less proactive and effective employee 

resource. We determined that other internal TSA interests have exercised an 

inappropriate level of influence over the planning and execution of a number 

of critical Ombudsman activities. These actions have compromised the 

Ombudsman’s effectiveness in conducting outreach to TSA employees and 

helping address their workplace concerns. Furthermore, such activity is 

relieving local management from some degree of accountability for 

implementing the Ombudsman’s suggested corrective actions for improving 

their workplace environments. This recommendation is unresolved and will 

remain open until TSA can provide more assurance that the Ombudsman’s 

activities are free from interference to provide the most effective services to 

the workforce. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 24 
Management Comments to Recommendation 2: 

TSA concurs and plans to clearly set forth the role, authority, responsibilities, 

and jurisdiction of its Ombudsman within its organizational context as an 

informal avenue for addressing employee workplace concerns. TSA plans to 

issue a Management Directive in this regard by the end of calendar year 2008. 

The Management Directive will clearly identify steps to take when allegations 

are made of retaliatory actions toward individuals who choose to use this or 

another option for raising issues or concerns to management. The Office of 

the Ombudsman will continue to suggest corrective actions to local 

management and will follow-up with appropriate officials on those 

recommendations in an informal, collaborative, problem-solving manner. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s proposed Management Directive will help improve 

the effectiveness of the Office of Ombudsman by identifying its role, 

authority, responsibilities, and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s practice of 

suggesting corrective actions without ensuring their implementation impedes 

the effectiveness of its services and does not ensure accountability. This 

recommendation is resolved, but will remain open until we have the 

opportunity to review the final Management Directive. For accountability 

purposes, we would also like further justification for the lack of 

documentation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations to local management. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 3: 

TSA concurs and noted that it is improving the reporting activities of the 

Ombudsman to ensure more responsive data and trend analyses. TSA plans to 

provide individualized reports to specific airports when the employee contact 

volume is at such a level that it will not compromise the confidential nature of 

the contacts. The agency plans to make specific improvements to the Inquiry 

Management System as they are identified, as long as they are cost effective 

and properly funded. In the longer term, TSA will consider reporting needs 

and requirements of the Office of Ombudsman in the agency’s development 

of an enterprise-wide case management solution. TSA included this solution 

in the Office of the Special Counselor’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan and is 

scheduled to deploy it to the Office of the Ombudsman in coordination with 

agency priorities. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s proposed actions will help improve the 

effectiveness of the Ombudsman by instituting more robust and strategic 

reporting and data analysis activities. Individualized Ombudsman reports for 

specific airports will help local management address trends in workforce 

concerns exclusive to each location. Improvements to the Inquiry 

Management System will further enhance the Ombudsman’s ability to track 

the status of employees’ individual concerns. This recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain open until we have the opportunity to review an 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 25 
 

action plan and details to support TSA’s proposed improvements, including 

the individualized reports. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 4: 

TSA concurs in part and plans to issue a Management Directive addressing 

the implementation of Integrated Conflict Management System Standards by 

the end of calendar year 2008. The Integrated Conflict Management System 

Standards specifically address the positioning, role, and responsibilities of the 

Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinator. The Model Workplace 

Program Office is working with the Office of Security Operations to ensure 

the duties of Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinators and the 

resource requirements for employee engagement are factored into developing 

local staffing models. The Integrated Conflict Management System Standards 

are also being integrated into job competencies, performance plans, training, 

hiring, rewards and recognition, and existing systems of accountability, such 

as performance metrics, performance management, and site assessments. 

TSA has allocated additional resources to the Model Workplace Program 

Office to further enhance competency development, support the National 

Advisory Council point of contact network, and establish a greater presence in 

the field for hands-on guidance and support to local efforts in meeting 

Integrated Conflict Management System Standards. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s actions to develop Integrated Conflict Management 

System Standards and its efforts to issue a Management Directive will add a 

critical element of consistency in how the local Integrated Conflict 

Management System is structured, implemented, and evaluated. These 

actions will help ensure that local management and Integrated Conflict 

Management System Coordinators understand their respective roles and 

responsibilities and will allow their performance, and the ultimate 

effectiveness of their local systems, to be measured according to defined 

criteria. This recommendation is resolved, but will remain open until we have 

the opportunity to review the Integrated Conflict Management System 

Standards and Management Directive. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 5: 

TSA concurs and plans to codify the National Advisory Council point of 

contact network’s roles, responsibilities, and resource requirements in the 

National Advisory Council Charter. TSA is also working with the Model 

Workplace Program Office to firmly establish the points of contact network to 

ensure it is a robust tool linking employees at all airports with senior TSA 

leadership. The National Advisory Council network will be implemented by 

the end of calendar year 2008 to consist of National Advisory Council Alumni 

and local points of contact. Once fully established, either a National Advisory 

Council member or local point of contact will represent each airport. Points 

of contact will also be members of local employee councils and will partner 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 26 
with their Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinators to ensure 

issues of national significance that emerge from any segment of the workforce 

are forwarded to the National Advisory Council for consideration. TSA will 

keep FSDs and the entire workforce fully informed of these roles, 

responsibilities, and requirements and two new Model Workplace Program 

Office staff members would be dedicated to ensuring the accessibility and full 

potential of the network. 

OIG Evaluation: TSA’s plans to keep employees informed and achieve 

greater representation of workforce issues through an expanded and more 

engaged national point of contact network will improve the overall 

effectiveness of the National Advisory Council. This recommendation is 

resolved, but will remain open until we review the revised National Advisory 

Council Charter, the National Advisory Council member and points of contact 

roster, and documented evidence of the outreach provided to the workforce. 

Management Comments to Recommendation 6: 

TSA concurs and will continue to engage in multiple efforts to raise employee 

awareness of options and services through a variety of avenues. TSA 

indicated the Ombudsman was successful in distributing a message about its 

services in leave and earnings statements issued to all TSA employees in 

December 2007. This method of communication will be repeated on a regular 

basis. Furthermore, TSA will continue to use weekly electronic newsletters, 

leadership webcasts, leave and earnings statement messages, the TSA Intranet, 

and regular broadcast emails to all employees from TSA leadership. 

OIG Evaluation: Although TSA concurs with this recommendation, its 

actions do not satisfactorily address its intent. Specifically, TSA’s response 

only addresses the promotion of the Ombudsman but does not specifically 

indicate that the other two proactive initiatives available to employees will be 

similarly promoted. The response also does not specify the level of detail the 

agency will provide to ensure employees know and understand all of the 

options available to raise concerns appropriately. This recommendation is 

unresolved and will remain open until TSA provides additional detail on the 

extent of information disseminated to the workforce. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 27 
 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our audit objective was to determine the effectiveness of TSA’s efforts to proactively 

identify and address employee workplace problems, issues, and concerns. 

Specifically, we assessed whether TSA’s: 

•	 Office of the Ombudsman is effectively organized and has implemented effective 

systems and procedures to address employee concerns and issues; 

•	 Model Workplace Program initiative has been implemented effectively to assist 

employees with constructively raising issues, solving problems, and avoiding the 

formal complaint process through the agency’s implementation of the Integrated 

Conflict Management System; and 

•	 National Advisory Council has been effectively structured and implemented to 

identify agency-wide employee workplace problems, issues, and concerns and 

propose appropriate solutions. 

We reviewed applicable federal laws, directives, regulations, and prior audit reports. 

We interviewed personnel at TSA Headquarters and visited eight airports (five 

Category X, two Category I, and one Category II3

). We selected eight airports where 

TSA employees alerted congressional representatives, the DHS OIG, the media, and 

TSA’s Office of the Ombudsman of concerns about how the agency operates at their 

locations. The airports we visited were Albany International Airport, Austin Straubel 

International Airport, Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall 

Airport, Houston-Hobby Airport, Boston Logan International Airport, Philadelphia 

International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and SeattleTacoma International Airport. 

At each airport, we interviewed a judgmental sample of approximately 40 TSOs (320 

total), selected from duty rosters provided by TSA, and then analyzed their 

comments. We conducted these interviews at the employees’ respective airports to 

assess their awareness and opinions of the agency’s programs and initiatives under 

review by the OIG. Each interview was conducted privately and specifically 

addressed the three programs reviewed and the local management’s efforts to create 

awareness. Employees often shared other relevant, unsolicited concerns during these 

interviews. 

To determine whether TSA’s Office of the Ombudsman is effectively organized and 

has implemented effective systems and procedures to address employee concerns and 

issues, we interviewed the Office of the Ombudsman’s staff, TSA Special Counselor, 

and a sample of TSOs selected at each airport. We directly observed and documented 

work-related processes and procedures conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman’s 

staff. Also, we interviewed TSA senior management at airports in order to determine 

3

 TSA classifies commercial airports in the United States into one of five security risk categories (X, I, II, III, and IV) 

based on various factors, such as the total number of takeoffs and landings annually, and other security considerations. 

In general, Category X airports have the highest number of passenger boarding and Category IV have the lowest. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 28 
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

their responsiveness to observations and suggested corrective actions identified as a 

result of Office of the Ombudsman’s site visit reports. 

To determine if the Integrated Conflict Management System has been implemented 

effectively, we interviewed Model Workplace Program Office personnel, local 

program officials responsible for the administration of the Integrated Conflict 

Management System, and a sample of TSOs from selected airports. We administered 

a questionnaire to each airport’s Integrated Conflict Management System Coordinator 

to determine their technical backgrounds and how local programs are structured and 

communicated with TSA Headquarters personnel. We also reviewed Model 

Workplace Program Initiative documentation, including the Coordinators Guide to 

Integrated Conflict Management System Implementation, and an Integrated Conflict 

Management System mandate to FSDs, issued in February 2007. 

To evaluate whether the National Advisory Council has been effectively implemented 

to identify employee workplace problems, issues, and concerns, and assist TSA 

leadership with corrective actions, we interviewed National Advisory Council 

committee members, airport points of contact for both the TSO Advisory Council and 

the Assistant FSD for Screening Advisory Council, and a sample of TSOs at selected 

airports. Additionally, we attended one of the National Advisory Council’s quarterly 

presentations to the TSA Administrator to directly observe its activities, outcomes, 

and presentation of employee issues to TSA senior leadership. 

We conducted this performance audit 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. We conducted fieldwork between July 2007 and December 2007 

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

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 29 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 30 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 31 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 32 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 33 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 34 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 35 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 36 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 37 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 38 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 39 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 40 
Appendix C 

TSA Internal Action Offices Designated to Address Complaints 

Major Duties and Responsibilities Related to Employee Concerns and Complaints 

Office of Civil Rights and Liberties 

• The Office of Civil Rights and Liberties addresses Equal Employment Opportunity complaints 

filed by TSA employees and applicants for TSA employment who feel they were subject to 

discriminatory employment practices, unlawful harassment, or retaliation. 

• Process involves informal counseling to complainant and an attempt to resolve the issue through 

the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties’ Informal/Alternative Resolutions to Conflict Division. 

Office of Inspection, Investigations Division 

• The Office of Inspection investigates criminal and noncriminal misconduct by TSA employees, 

mismanagement, violations of TSA’s security directives, and allegations of sexual harassment 

involving an FSD or other executive level management officials. 

• The Office of Inspection is obligated to report certain matters to the DHS OIG first for a 

determination of whether the OIG or TSA will conduct the investigation. 

Office of Security Operations, Management Inquiry Branch 

• Office of Security Operation’s Management Inquiry Branch was established in May 2006 to 

provide an avenue to report misconduct or mismanagement without fear of reprisal. The scope 

of its authority is limited to investigating misconduct or mismanagement of a noncriminal nature 

involving only senior level TSA employees: FSDs, Assistant Federal Security Directors, or 

other executive level management officials. 

• The Management Inquiry Branch investigations include: time and leave abuse/fraud, offensive 

emails, nepotism, intimidation, hostile work environment, inappropriate comments, and poor 

judgment. 

• The Management Inquiry Branch also has an administrative function to review “referral” cases 

for closure and provide information to the FSDs at those airports where the referrals originated. 

Office of Human Capital 

• The Office of Human Capital has a number of sub-offices that deal with specific types of 

employee complaints and allegations: 

• Professional Review Board 

• Disciplinary Review Board 

• Services and Consultation Division 

• Diversity and Reasonable Accommodation Office 

• Employee Relations Office. 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 41 
Appendix D 

TSA’s Integrated Conflict Management System Maturity Model 

Source: TSA’s Model Workplace Program Office 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 42 
Appendix E 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Transportation Security Audits Division 

Timothy Crowe, Director 

Patrick O’Malley, Audit Manager 

Gary Alvino, Auditor-In-Charge 

Robert Ferrara, Auditor 

Amy Nase, Auditor 

Michael Talevi, Auditor 

Richard Kotecki, Referencer 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 43 
 

Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security Administration 

Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

TSA Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

Transportation Security Administration’s Efforts To Proactively Address Employee Concerns 

Page 44 
Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at 

(202) 254-4199, fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at 

www.dhs.gov/oig. 

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 our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

•	 Write to us at:
 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: 

Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, Washington, 

DC 20528, 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.