Aviation Security: Rapid Growth in Expedited Passenger Screening Highlights Need to Plan Effective Security Assessments
Published: 2014-12-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: TSA screens or oversees the screening of more than 650 million passengers annually at more than 450 U.S. airports. In 2011, TSA began providing expedited screening to selected passengers as part of its overall emphasis on risk-based security. Specifically, by determining passenger risk prior to travel, TSA intended to focus screening resources on higher-risk passengers while expediting screening for lower-risk passengers.
GAO was asked to determine how TSA implemented and expanded expedited screening via TSA Pre✓ TM . This report examines, among other things, (1) how TSA has developed, implemented, and used expedited screening, (2) how TSA assesses passenger risk, and (3) the extent to which TSA has determined the Managed Inclusion system's effectiveness. GAO analyzed TSA procedures and data from October 2011 through January 2014 on expedited screening and interviewed officials at TSA, airport authorities, air carriers, and industry associations about expedited screening.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) implemented its expedited screening program—known as TSA Pre✓ TM in 2011, the number of passengers receiving expedited screening grew slowly, and then increased about 300 percent in October 2013 when TSA expanded its use of methods to increase passenger participation, such as conducting automated risk assessments of all passengers. In conducting these assessments, TSA assigns passenger scores based upon information available to TSA to identify low risk passengers eligible for expedited screening for a specific flight prior to the passengers’ arrival at the airport.
To assess whether a passenger is eligible for expedited screening, TSA considers (1) inclusion on an approved TSA Pre✓ TM list of known travelers; (2) results from the automated risk assessments of all passengers; and (3) threat assessments of passengers conducted at airport checkpoints known as Managed Inclusion. Managed Inclusion uses several layers of security, including procedures that randomly select passengers for expedited screening, behavior detection officers who observe passengers to identify high-risk behaviors, and either passenger screening canine teams or explosives trace detection devices to help ensure that passengers selected for expedited screening have not handled explosive material. Prior to Managed Inclusion’s implementation, TSA relied primarily on approved lists of known travelers to determine passenger eligibility for expedited screening.
TSA has tested the effectiveness of individual Managed Inclusion security layers and determined that each layer provides effective security. GAO has previously conducted work on several of the layers used in the Managed Inclusion process, raising concerns regarding its effectiveness and recommending actions to TSA to strengthen them. For example, in January 2013, GAO recommended that TSA take actions to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of canine teams. TSA subsequently addressed this recommendation by conducting the assessment. In October 2014, TSA planned to begin testing Managed Inclusion as an overall system, but could not provide specifics or a plan or documentation showing how the testing is to be conducted, the locations where it is to occur, how these locations are to be selected, or the timeframes for conducting testing at each location. Moreover, GAO has previously reported on challenges TSA has faced in designing studies to test the security effectiveness of its other programs in accordance with established methodological practices such as ensuring an adequate sample size or randomly selecting items in a study to ensure the results can be generalizable—key features of established evaluation design practices. Ensuring its planned testing of the Managed Inclusion process adheres to established evaluation design practices will help TSA provide reasonable assurance that the testing will yield reliable results.
This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2014. Information that the Department of Homeland Security deemed sensitive has been removed.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that TSA take steps to ensure and document that its planned testing of the Managed Inclusion system adheres to established evaluation design practices, among other things. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), within the Department  of Homeland Security, screens or oversees the screening of more than  650 million air passengers annually at more than 450 airports nationwide,  and attempts to balance its aviation security mission with the freedom of  movement for people and commerce. In 2011, TSA began developing  new security procedures intended to strengthen security and improve the  passenger experience by shortening lines and wait times. These new  procedures apply risk-based, intelligence-driven screening concepts and  enhance the use of technology to determine passenger risk prior to travel.  These procedures are intended to allow TSA to devote more time and  resources at the airport to screening the passengers TSA determines to  be higher or unknown risk while providing expedited screening to those  passengers TSA determines pose a lower risk to the aviation system.  According to TSA, expedited screening involves a relatively more efficient  and convenient screening process for individuals from whom TSA has  obtained sufficient information to determine them to be lower risk,  compared with the standard screening process for a traveler for whom  TSA does not have such information. For example, passengers eligible  for expedited screening may no longer have to remove their shoes; may  leave their permitted liquids, gels, and laptops in carry-on baggage; and  are not required to divest light outerwear, jackets, or belts when passing  through screening checkpoints unless the walk-through metal detector  alarms, in which case these items must be removed.
In October 2011, TSA implemented the TSA PreTM program and has  used it to gather information about passengers to assess passenger risk  prior to travel. Those passengers determined to be lower risk prior to  arriving at the airport are eligible for expedited screening. In November  2012, TSA implemented its Managed Inclusion process to assess  passenger risk in real time at the airport using randomization procedures  and behavior detection officers (BDOs), as well as either passenger  screening canine teams—referred to as canine teams for purposes of this  report—or explosives trace detection (ETD) devices. Using Managed  Inclusion, TSA is able to provide expedited screening to passengers who  have not been identified for this screening under the TSA PreTM  program prior to arriving at the airport. TSA’s Office of the Chief Risk  Officer is responsible for overseeing and integrating TSA’s risk-based  security initiatives, and the TSA Offices of Security Capabilities,  Intelligence and Analysis, and Security Operations are responsible for  implementing and deploying these initiatives.
You asked us to determine how TSA implemented and expanded  expedited screening via the TSA PreTM program and Managed Inclusion  process, including how TSA collaborated with stakeholders to implement  and expand expedited screening, assesses passenger risk to determine  whether some passengers are lower risk than others and therefore  eligible for expedited screening, and measures the effectiveness of and  cost savings resulting from expedited screening. This report addresses  the following questions:  1.  How has the development of TSA PreTM, Managed Inclusion, and  other TSA programs affected the availability and use of expedited  screening at airports?  2.  How did TSA collaborate with stakeholders when developing and  expanding expedited screening programs?  3.  How does TSA assess the risk of passengers to determine their  eligibility to receive expedited screening, and to what extent has TSA  determined the effectiveness of its Managed Inclusion process?  4.  To what extent does TSA assess progress towards achieving  expedited screening program goals and estimate cost savings as a  result of expedited screening programs?
This report is a public version of the prior sensitive report that we  provided to you. The Department of Homeland Security deemed some of  the information in our prior report as sensitive security information, which  must be protected from public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits this  sensitive information, which includes information about the TSA PreTM  Risk Assessment program and Managed Inclusion process. Although the  information provided in this report is more limited in scope, it addresses  the same questions as the sensitive report. Also, the overall methodology  used for both reports is the same.
To determine how the development of TSA PreTM, Managed Inclusion,  and other TSA programs affected the availability and use of expedited  screening, we analyzed TSA documentation including expedited  screening and Managed Inclusion procedures developed in October 2011  and revised through September 2013, expedited screening and Managed  Inclusion implementation plans and time frames developed in October  2011 and revised through March 2014, memorandums of agreement, and  decision memorandums, among other documents. We also reviewed  TSA’s December 2013 screening procedures for standard screening  lanes to understand the differences between expedited screening and  standard screening. To determine how the use of expedited screening  has changed over time for both the number of passengers eligible for and  using expedited screening, we analyzed TSA data available from TSA’s  Secure Flight system and Performance Management Information System  to determine how many boarding passes with the TSA PreTM  designation were issued and compared the number of boarding passes  issued with the number of boarding passes that were scanned in a  dedicated TSA PreTM expedited screening lane from October 2011  through January 2014 (the most recent data available). We assessed the  reliability of the data collected by reviewing Secure Flight and  Performance Management Information System documents and  interviewing TSA officials and determined that data for the number of  passengers eligible for and using expedited screening were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report. To further clarify our understanding  of how expedited screening and Managed Inclusion operate, we visited  six airports to observe expedited screening and Managed Inclusion and  interviewed TSA federal security directors (FSD) about how expedited  screening and Managed Inclusion were implemented at these airports.  We selected these airports based on (1) the number of annual  enplanements, (2) the availability of TSA PreTM and Managed Inclusion,  (3) the ease of passenger access to TSA PreTM expedited screening  lanes, and (4) the number and variety of air carriers with a presence at  the airport, among other reasons. Because we selected a nonprobability  sample of airports to visit, the information obtained cannot be generalized  to all airports. However, the site visits provided illustrative examples of  how TSA PreTM and Managed Inclusion operate. We also interviewed  TSA officials from the Offices of the Chief Risk Officer, Security  Capabilities, Intelligence and Analysis, and Security Operations to confirm  our understanding of TSA expedited screening and Managed Inclusion.
To determine how TSA collaborated with stakeholders including air  carriers, airports, and industry associations to implement and expand  expedited screening, we analyzed TSA data and documents including  passenger comments provided to the TSA Contact Center from October  2011 through April 2014, a list of industry events and conference  appearances made by TSA officials from July 2011 through June 2013  (the most recent data available related to TSA’s collaboration activities on  expedited screening), and TSA briefing slides used to present information  about expedited screening to airport officials, among other documents.  We assessed the reliability of the Contact Center data by reviewing  documents and interviewing TSA officials and determined that these data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we  interviewed officials representing five air carriers, five airport authorities,  and six industry associations. Of the five air carriers we interviewed, four  represented air carriers that worked with TSA during 2011 and 2012 to  implement and expand expedited screening and provided air carriers’  perspectives about TSA collaboration efforts. We also interviewed one air  carrier that began participating in TSA PreTM in late 2013 to determine  whether TSA’s collaboration efforts changed over time. The five airport  authorities we interviewed were co-located with the airports we visited, as  noted above, and provided the airport authorities’ perspectives regarding  TSA collaboration efforts. The six industry associations we interviewed  represented different types of passengers, including leisure, business,  and international passengers as well as air carrier and airport executives,  and provided the perspectives of these associations and their  constituents regarding how TSA collaborated with them when  implementing and expanding expedited screening. Because we selected  a nonprobability sample of stakeholders to interview, the information  obtained cannot be generalized to all stakeholders. However, the  interviews provided illustrative examples of the perspectives of these  stakeholders about how TSA collaborated with them when implementing  and expanding expedited screening, and how TSA PreTM was  implemented and expanded at specific airports. We also interviewed TSA  officials about the stakeholders’ views of TSA’s collaboration efforts and  discussed any discrepancies between the stakeholders’ and TSA’s views.
To determine how TSA assesses the risk of passengers to determine  their eligibility or opportunity to receive expedited screening at the airport,  we reviewed TSA documents including decision memorandums and  reports from September 2011 to March 2014 that document TSA’s  development of and rationale behind the risk assessment methodologies  it used to determine passenger risk both prior to travel and at the airport.  We also reviewed expedited screening and Managed Inclusion policies  and procedures developed in October 2011 and revised through March  2014 to determine how TSA assesses passenger risk before passengers  arrive at the airport and once passengers arrive at the airport, among  other documents. We also interviewed TSA officials responsible for  determining how TSA assesses passenger risk to confirm our  understanding of the rationale behind TSA’s risk assessments. To  determine the extent to which TSA has determined the effectiveness of its  Managed Inclusion process, we interviewed TSA officials to confirm our  understanding of TSA’s progress in this area. In addition, we reviewed  our prior work on the Screening of Passengers by Observation  Techniques (SPOT) program and Advanced Imaging Technology to  inform our understanding of TSA’s past experience with evaluating and  testing security related programs in accordance with established  practices.
To assess the extent to which TSA assesses progress towards achieving  expedited screening program goals, we analyzed documentation  including the Office of Security Operations Daily Leadership Report  Reference Guide, examples of Daily Leadership Reports, and the TSA  May 2014 Air Passenger Certification report to determine the goals and  performance measures TSA developed to gauge expedited screening  performance and progress. We compared these goals and performance  measures against various criteria including performance measurement  best practices to determine whether TSA’s performance goals and  measures comport with these criteria, and if they did not, determined  where gaps exist. In addition, we interviewed TSA officials to obtain  information on their efforts to collect and use data to measure  performance and track progress towards meeting performance goals for  expedited screening and Managed Inclusion and to confirm our  understanding of the goals, measures, and the data used to determine  progress toward the goals. During these interviews, we also discussed  any discrepancies between performance measurement best practices  and TSA’s performance measurement efforts to obtain TSA’s views on  the reasons any discrepancies existed. Regarding cost savings, we  analyzed TSA estimates of the financial savings TSA plans to achieve as  a result of expedited screening and interviewed TSA officials to confirm  our understanding of the financial savings estimates and the data  included in these estimates. We compared TSA estimated financial  savings with the Office of Management and Budget guidance for  developing budget submissions to determine whether TSA’s financial  savings estimates comport with these criteria, and if not, determined  where gaps exist.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to December 2014,  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to TSA, the majority of air carrier passengers present a low risk  to aviation security, but until recently, with the exception of passengers  matched to watchlists, TSA has used the same security screening  procedures for passengers without regard for the risk passengers posed.  TSA, through the Secure Flight system, utilizes watchlists derived from  the Terrorist Screening Database—the U.S. government’s consolidated  watchlist of known or suspected terrorists—and other sources to identify  potentially high-risk passengers. For example, the No Fly List contains  information on individuals who are prohibited from boarding an aircraft,  and the Selectee List contains information on individuals who must  undergo additional security screening before being permitted to board an  aircraft. As part of TSA PreTM, TSA conducts terrorism related checks  using lists derived from the database as a part of the security threat  assessment process.
In 2011, TSA began to explore the benefits of using risk-based,  intelligence-driven security screening procedures that would allow TSA to  learn more about passengers prior to travel because, according to TSA, it  can better assess passenger risk when it knows more about passengers.  In addition, TSA worked to develop procedures to ensure screening  resources are focused on passengers determined to be high risk and  passengers about whom TSA has less information while expediting the  screening of passengers TSA has assessed as being lower risk based on  information it has on such passengers. Using this risk-based approach,  TSA began to identify and define lower risk passenger populations or  “known travelers”—that is, those who have volunteered personal  information to TSA so that TSA can confirm these known travelers are  lower risk.
subsections: section_title: Expedited Screening
paragraphs: When TSA began offering expedited airport screening in the summer of  2011, TSA initially provided such screenings in standard lanes to  passengers aged 12 and younger, and subsequently extended expedited  screening to certain flight crew members and then to passengers aged 75  and older. In October 2011, TSA began to expand the concept of  expedited airport screening to more of the flying public by piloting the TSA  PreTM program. This pilot program allowed certain frequent fliers of two  air carriers to experience expedited screening at four airports. These  frequent fliers became eligible for screening in dedicated expedited  screening lanes, which became known as TSA PreTM lanes, because  they had opted into the TSA PreTM program through the air carrier with  which they had attained frequent flier status. TSA also allowed certain  members of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Trusted  Traveler programs to experience expedited screening as part of the TSA  PreTM pilot. TSA provided expedited screening in dedicated screening  lanes to these frequent fliers and CBP’s Trusted Travelers during the TSA  PreTM pilot program because TSA had information about these  passengers, and TSA used this information to determine that passengers  in these groups were lower risk. When traveling on one of the air carriers  and departing from one of the airports participating in the pilot, these  passengers were eligible to be screened in dedicated TSA PreTM  screening lanes where the passengers were not required to remove their  shoes; divest light outerwear, jackets, and belts; or remove liquids, gels,  and laptops from carry-on baggage.
After the pilot concluded, in February 2012, and transitioned into a formal  program, TSA began to add additional air carriers and passenger groups  to the TSA PreTM program. For an air carrier to participate in TSA  PreTM, the air carrier must have the technological capability to send the  necessary passenger information to Secure Flight for vetting against  federal government watchlists, and print the low-risk designation in the  encrypted boarding pass bar code and the TSA PreTM designation on  the boarding pass. As each air carrier joined TSA PreTM, the carrier’s  frequent fliers became eligible to opt in for expedited screening only when  traveling on that air carrier.
Since October 2011, TSA further expanded the known traveler  populations eligible for expedited screening. After TSA piloted TSA  PreTM with certain passengers who are frequent fliers and members of  CBP’s Trusted Traveler programs, TSA established separate TSA PreTM  lists for additional low-risk passenger populations, including members of  the U.S. armed forces, Congressional Medal of Honor Society Members,  members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and Members of  Congress, among others. In addition to TSA PreTM lists sponsored by  other agencies or entities, TSA created its own TSA PreTM list  composed of individuals who apply to be preapproved as low-risk  travelers through the TSA PreTM Application Program, an initiative  launched in December 2013. To apply, individuals must visit an  enrollment center where they provide biographic information (i.e., name,  date of birth, and address), valid identity and citizenship documentation,  and fingerprints to undergo a TSA Security Threat Assessment. TSA  leveraged existing federal capabilities to both enroll and conduct threat  assessments for program applicants using enrollment centers previously  established for the Transportation Worker Identification Credential  Program, and existing transportation vetting systems to conduct applicant  threat assessments. Applicants must be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals or  lawful permanent residents, and cannot have been convicted of certain  crimes. As of April 2014, there were about 5.6 million individuals who,  through TSA PreTM lists, were eligible for expedited screening. Figure 1  shows the populations for each TSA PreTM list.
In addition to passengers who are included on one of the TSA PreTM  lists, in October 2013, TSA began implementing the TSA PreTM Risk  Assessment program, which evaluates passenger risk using data  available to TSA to determine a certain likelihood that passengers will be  designated as eligible to receive expedited screening through TSA  PreTM.
section_title: The TSA PreTM Process at the Airport
paragraphs: According to TSA officials, in February 2013, TSA established a policy to  notify passengers of their eligibility for expedited screening using the air  carrier reservation systems in order to improve passenger movement  through airports for TSA PreTM eligible passengers. For every  passenger, TSA uses the Secure Flight system to automatically match  passenger information collected by the air carriers against the various  watchlists (e.g., the No Fly and Selectee Lists) up to 72 hours before  passengers’ scheduled air travel. After checking for matches to the  watchlists, Secure Flight directs the air carrier to mark a passenger’s  boarding pass for enhanced screening or expedited screening, or to  identify a passenger as being prohibited from boarding an aircraft, or to  identify a passenger for standard screening.TSA uses a similar process to  identify passengers who are eligible for expedited screening at the airport  by using the same information provided by the air carriers to the Secure  Flight system to match against lists of individuals who have been  designated as low risk. TSA informs passengers of this eligibility by  directing the air carriers to mark the boarding pass with the TSA PreTM  designation. Figure 2 shows examples of boarding passes with the TSA  PreTM designation.
At airports, the mechanism TSA uses to screen passengers who have the  TSA PreTM designation on their boarding pass depends on the  configuration of the airport. At some airports, TSA has dedicated TSA  PreTM expedited screening lanes where passengers with the TSA  PreTM designation on their boarding passes are not required to divest  shoes, light outerwear, laptops, liquids, and gels. Because TSA PreTM  expedited screening is voluntary, a passenger designated as eligible for  TSA PreTM expedited screening may choose not to use a TSA PreTM  dedicated screening lane. Also, some airports do not have dedicated TSA  PreTM expedited screening lanes either because of space restrictions  that preclude the airport from installing a dedicated screening lane in a  security checkpoint or because the number of passengers with the TSA  PreTM boarding pass designations is low and therefore does not warrant  a separate dedicated lane. According to TSA officials, at these airports,  passengers with a TSA PreTM boarding pass can still experience  expedited screening of “their persons” (i.e., passengers are not required  to divest shoes, light jackets, and belts) and use a walk through metal  detector in the standard screening lane; however, they must divest their  liquids, gels, and laptops from baggage because the screening process  used in the standard screening lanes should result in the transportation  security officer (TSO) identifying these items and searching the  baggage—slowing throughput in the standard screening lane—if these  items are not removed.
For airports at which there are dedicated screening lanes, security  checkpoints may not consistently have a volume of TSA PreTM  passengers that warrants operating such lanes because the TSO working  in the lanes would be underutilized. Also, an underutilized expedited  screening lane can result in longer wait times in standard screening lanes  because airports that offer expedited screening in dedicated screening  lanes generally do so at the expense of standard screening lane  availability, according to airport and TSA officials. To ensure the utility of  expedited screening lanes for non-TSA PreTM passengers, TSA  implemented the Managed Inclusion process in November 2012. The  Managed Inclusion process involves using real-time threat assessment  methods, including randomization procedures and behavior detection  officers (BDO), as well as either canine teams or explosives trace  detection (ETD) devices to screen non-TSA PreTM passengers in lanes  that are otherwise dedicated to TSA PreTM passengers. TSA operates  Managed Inclusion at the discretion of the airport’s FSD and is available  at airports that have dedicated TSA PreTM expedited screening lanes,  and either canine teams, ETD devices, or both. The Managed Inclusion  process will be more fully described later in this report.
As of April 2014, TSA officials stated they provided expedited screening  at essentially all of the approximately 450 airports at which TSA performs,  or oversees the performance of, security screening, including 118 airports  where TSA offers expedited screening in dedicated TSA PreTM  screening lanes. The 118 airports where expedited screening is offered in  dedicated TSA PreTM screening lanes represent about 95 percent of  total air carrier enplanements based on Federal Aviation Administration  calendar year 2012 data. Figure 3 shows the locations of the airports with  dedicated TSA PreTM screening lanes. Also, appendix I provides a list of  the airports included on the map.
section_title: TSA PreTM Risk Assessments and Other Programs Have Significantly Increased Availability and Use of Expedited Screening
paragraphs: TSA’s implementation of the TSA PreTM Risk Assessments, expansion  of Managed Inclusion, and increasing the number of TSA PreTM airports  accounted for a significant increase in the overall number of passengers  designated as eligible for expedited screening, as well as the number of  passengers who generally underwent such screening. Specifically,  according to TSA data and as shown in figure 4, the number of TSA  PreTM boarding passes issued each month grew slowly from October  2011, when TSA PreTM was launched, through September 2013,  increasing from about 673,000 to about 3 million. In October 2013, when  TSA began the TSA PreTM Risk Assessment process, TSA issued  almost 9 million TSA PreTM boarding passes. Furthermore since  October 2011, air carrier participation has expanded from two air carriers  to nine air carriers as of April 2014. Figure 4 also shows the number of  passengers receiving TSA PreTM expedited screening, the dates when  air carriers began participating in the TSA PreTM program, and the dates  when various programs intended to expand the use of expedited  screening were implemented.
Figure 4 also shows the difference between the number of TSA PreTM  boarding passes issued and the number of passengers who receive  expedited screening at the airport. According to TSA officials, this  difference occurs because TSA PreTM is a voluntary program and not all  passengers who are eligible necessarily use expedited screening. For  example, a passenger may be traveling with a group in which not all  passengers in the group are eligible for expedited screening so the  passenger may choose to forgo expedited screening. Prior to October  2013, TSA designated passengers as eligible for expedited screening  because they were members of one of the populations TSA had  designated as low risk. These populations included individuals who opted  to participate in the TSA PreTM lists shown in figure 1, as well as almost  1.5 million frequent fliers who opted in to participate in the TSA PreTM  program, and passengers aged 12 and under and 75 and older. In  October 2013, TSA began to provide expedited screening to a much  larger population of travelers using the TSA PreTM Risk Assessment  program and Managed Inclusion. After TSA implemented the TSA PreTM  Risk Assessment program any passenger flying on a participating air  carrier could be designated as low risk and provided a TSA PreTM  boarding pass designation.
At the same time the number of TSA PreTM boarding pass designations  increased, the expedited screening throughput in TSA PreTM lanes also  increased. For example, according to TSA data and as shown in figure 4,  the number of passengers receiving expedited screening in September  2013 was about 2 million. In October 2013, about 8 million passengers  received expedited screening, about a 300 percent increase. According to  TSA officials, the increased throughput in TSA PreTM lanes was due to  the implementation of the TSA PreTM Risk Assessments and the  expansion from 40 to 100 airports at that time with dedicated expedited  screening lanes. In addition, TSA increased the number of passengers  with the opportunity to experience expedited screening in October and  November 2013 by expanding Managed Inclusion, in which TSA uses  real-time threat assessment methods to screen standard passengers in  lanes that are otherwise dedicated to TSA PreTM passengers. Whereas  TSA first implemented Managed Inclusion in November 2012 using  canine teams to screen passengers for explosives as part of a real-time  threat assessment, TSA determined it could operate Managed Inclusion  at more airports by screening for explosives using ETD devices. TSA  piloted Managed Inclusion with ETD devices in Boston and Seattle in July  2013, and implemented the program nationwide in October and  November 2013 when it increased the number of airports operating  Managed Inclusion with ETD devices. Figure 5 shows a snapshot from  May 11, 2014, through May 18, 2014, of the percentage of weekly  passengers receiving non-expedited screening and expedited screening,  and further shows whether known crew members experienced expedited  screening, and whether expedited screening occurred in TSA Pre™  lanes (for passengers designated as known travelers or through the TSA  Pre™ Risk Assessment program, or passengers chosen for expedited  screening using Managed Inclusion), or in standard lanes.
As noted in figure 5, out of the 41 percent of passengers nationwide  receiving expedited screening during the week ending May 18, 2014,  nearly 40 percent of them were issued TSA Pre™ boarding passes, but  were provided expedited screening in a standard screening lane,  meaning that they were provided expedited screening of their persons  and did not have to remove their shoes, belts, and light outerwear, but  they had to divest their liquids, gels, and laptops. TSA provides expedited  screening to TSA PreTM-eligible passengers in standard lanes when  airports do not have dedicated TSA PreTM screening lanes because of  airport space constraints and limited TSA PreTM throughput.
section_title: TSA Used Various Methods to Collaborate with Stakeholders about Expedited Screening; TSA has begun Taking Action to Improve Communication with Passengers
paragraphs: TSA collaborated with stakeholders about how TSA PreTM works in  various ways, including presenting information about TSA PreTM at  industry conferences and events, holding monthly meetings with air  carriers and airport authorities, and conducting stakeholder briefings with  air carriers and airport authorities when implementing TSA PreTM at  airports. In addition, TSA officials stated that they have provided Power  Point presentations, reference materials, and promotional materials such  as advertisements to air carrier and industry stakeholders. TSA officials  said that they have also worked with a number of airports to set up tables  and information booths where passengers can obtain information about  TSA PreTM and expedited screening. Further, officials stated TSA has  updated their website and provided TSA PreTM information via the My  TSA App to inform passengers about how to enroll in the TSA PreTM  Application Program, which air carriers are participating in TSA PreTM,  and which airports have dedicated TSA PreTM screening lanes. TSOs  informally communicate information about TSA PreTM at airports by  explaining to passengers waiting in the screening queue how they could  enroll in the TSA PreTM Application Program to be eligible for expedited  screening.
Stakeholders told us that TSA coordinated with them at the local level to  implement dedicated TSA PreTM lanes. For example, one airport  authority we spoke with stated that TSA held regular meetings with airport  management and with the air carriers and included them in the  implementation process for opening expedited screening lanes. In  addition, representatives from two of the six industry associations that  represent passenger groups and that we interviewed noted that TSA’s  coordination with them was effective and that TSA gave the associations  the opportunity to provide input to TSA on how the program was first  implemented. According to these industry associations, TSA met with  them to encourage the associations to advertise expedited screening and  TSA PreTM to members. Further, three of five air carriers said that they  worked closely with TSA officials at the local airport level and provided  input to TSA on issues like where to place TSA PreTM lanes within the  airport.
Eight of the 16 stakeholders that we interviewed stated that TSA could do  a better job of communicating to passengers details about expedited  screening in dedicated TSA PreTM lanes. For example, representatives  from air carriers and industry associations stated that TSA could better  inform passengers about (1) the TSA PreTM expedited screening  eligibility requirements, including the fact that expedited screening is not  always guaranteed even when a passenger is on one of the TSA PreTM  lists; (2) how to know if they are eligible for expedited screening on a flight  on a given day; and (3) the divestiture requirements and procedures in  TSA PreTM screening lanes, among other things. In addition, officials  from one airport authority noted that they observe passengers who are  confused and improperly using expedited screening and stated that  passengers who travel infrequently could be better educated about TSA  PreTM. Furthermore, at two of the six airports we visited we observed  customers divesting liquids, laptops, shoes, and outerwear in TSA PreTM  screening lanes, which we noted caused the throughput to decrease and  wait times to increase for other passengers in the TSA PreTM expedited  screening lanes. TSA officials stated that it takes time to train passengers  about the expedited screening process and that some confusion on the  screening procedures is to be expected as passengers are retrained on  this process after becoming accustomed to the security measures  instituted since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
TSA tracks customers’ experiences using the TSA Contact Center, where  passengers can call or e-mail TSA officials about passenger screening  experiences or ask TSA staff for information about security screening.  Contact Center staff record details of each call and label the calls  regarding TSA PreTM as compliments, complaints, or information  requests about the program. TSA has collected the number of calls  received regarding TSA PreTM since October of 2011, reviews these  data weekly, and produces a weekly report on the call data. Our analysis  of Contact Center data shows that each month since October 2011,  passengers have submitted between 303 and 4,211 information requests  about TSA PreTM screening lanes. As shown in table 1, as of April 2014  TSA had received over 97,000 calls regarding TSA PreTM since October  of 2011.
As of July 2014, TSA officials stated they are beginning to analyze trends  and patterns from the Contact Center data in order to determine the  effectiveness of their advertising and messaging to passengers, and to  identify potential ways to make improvements. The Office of the Chief  Risk Officer has developed a trend analysis to record the number of TSA  PreTM-related calls the Contact Center received per month since  October of 2012. The trend analysis also tracks the types of calls  received over time to identify changes in the number of compliments,  complaints, or information requests and highlights trends relative to  events such as the start up of TSA PreTM Risk Assessments in October  2013 and TSA’s roll-out of the TSA PreTM Application Program in  December 2013. While these efforts could address concerns raised by  stakeholders, they are still in the early stages, so it is too soon to  determine whether TSA’s planned actions will effectively address these  concerns.
section_title: TSA Uses Three Methods to Assess Risk for Participation in Expedited Screening, But Has Not Tested the Overall Effectiveness of the Managed Inclusion Process
paragraphs: TSA determines a passenger’s eligibility for or opportunity to experience  expedited screening at the airport using one of three risk assessment  methods. These include (1) inclusion on a TSA PreTM list of known  travelers, (2) identification of passengers as low risk by TSA’s Risk  Assessment algorithm, or (3) a real-time threat assessment at the airport  using the Managed Inclusion process.
subsections: section_title: Passenger Eligibility Based on Inclusion on a TSA PreTM List of Known Travelers
paragraphs: TSA has determined that the individuals included on the TSA PreTM lists  of known travelers are low risk by virtue of their membership in a specific  group or based on group vetting requirements. For example, TSA  determined that members of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, a  group whose members have been awarded the highest U.S. award for  valor in action against enemy forces, present a low risk to transportation  security and are good candidates to receive expedited screening. In other  cases, TSA determined that members of groups whose individual  members have undergone a security threat assessment by the federal  government, such as individuals working for agencies in the intelligence  community and who hold active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized  Information clearances, are low risk and can be provided expedited  screening. Similarly, TSA designated all active and reserve service  members of the United States armed forces, whose combined members  total over 2 million people, as a low risk group of trusted travelers. TSA  determined that active duty military members were low risk and good  candidates to receive expedited screening because the Department of  Defense administers common background checks of its members.
Except for those who joined through the TSA Pre™ Application  program, the TSA Pre™ lists include populations for which TSA  coordinated with a lead agency or outside entity willing to compile and  maintain the lists. TSA has entered into separate agreements with the  various agencies and entities to administer these lists. Generally,  according to these agreements, Secure Flight has responsibility for  receiving and processing the lists, but the originating agencies or entities  are to maintain them by ensuring that individuals continue to meet the  criteria for inclusion and to update the lists as needed.
TSA also continues to provide expedited screening on a per-flight basis to  the almost 1.5 million frequent fliers who opted to participate in the TSA  Pre™ program pilot. According to TSA, this group of eligible frequent  fliers met the standards set for the pilot based on their frequent flyer  status as of October 1, 2011. TSA determined that these frequent fliers  were an appropriate population to include in the program for several  reasons, including the fact that frequent fliers are vetted against various  watchlists each time they travel to ensure that they are not listed as  known or suspected terrorists and screened at the checkpoint.
section_title: Passenger Eligibility Based on TSA PreTM Risk Assessments
paragraphs: The TSA PreTM Risk Assessment program evaluates passenger risk  based on certain information available for a specific flight and determines  the likelihood that passengers will be designated as eligible to receive  expedited screening through TSA PreTM. Beginning in 2011, TSA piloted  the process of using the Secure Flight system to obtain Secure Flight  Passenger Data from air carriers and other data to assess whether the  passenger is low risk on a per-flight basis and thus eligible to receive a  TSA PreTM designation on his or her boarding pass to give the flier  access to expedited screening. In September 2013 after completing this  pilot, TSA decided to explore expanding this risk assessment approach to  every traveler. In order to develop the set of low-risk rules to determine  the passengers’ relative risk, TSA formed an Integrated Project Team  consisting of officials from the Offices of Security Operations, Intelligence  and Analysis, Security Capabilities, and Risk-Based Security. The team  used data from multiple sources, including passenger data from the  Secure Flight system from calendar year 2012, to derive a baseline level  of relative risk for the entire passenger population. Our review of TSA’s  documentation showed that TSA considered the three elements of risk  assessment—Threat, Vulnerability, and Consequence—in its  development of the risk assessment. These three elements constitute the  framework for assessing risk as called for in the Department of Homeland  Security’s National Infrastructure Protection Plan. TSA worked with a  contractor to evaluate the data elements and the proposed risk model  rules used for the baseline level of relative risk. In its assessment of the  algorithm used for the analysis, the contractor agreed with TSA’s analysis  of the relationship between the data elements and relative risk assigned  to the data elements.
Although TSA determined that certain combinations of data elements in  its risk-based algorithm are less likely to include unknown potential  terrorists, it also noted that designating passengers as low risk based  solely on the algorithm carries some risk. To mitigate these risks, TSA  uses a random exclusion factor that places passengers, even those who  are otherwise eligible for expedited screening, into standard screening a  certain percentage of the time. TSA adjusts the level of random exclusion  based on the relative risk of the combinations of various data elements  used in the algorithm, such that data combinations carrying more risk are  randomly excluded from expedited screening more often than other data  combinations. For example, TSA’s assessment indicated that  combinations of certain data elements are considered relatively more  risky than other data groups and passengers who fit this profile for a  given flight should seldom be eligible for expedited screening, while  combinations of other data on a given flight pose relatively less risk and  could therefore be made eligible for expedited screening most of the of  the time. TSA developed a risk algorithm that scores each passenger on  each flight, and passengers with a high enough score receive a TSA  PreTM boarding pass designation making them eligible for expedited  screening for that trip.
For both the TSA PreTM known traveler lists and the TSA PreTM Risk  Assessments, TSA uses the Secure Flight system to determine  passengers’ risk levels and to assign low-risk passengers the TSA  PreTM designation to their boarding passes. Air carriers collect each  passenger’s name and date of birth when the passenger books travel.  When a passenger has a known traveler number, he or she may enter the  number into the air carrier reservation system when booking travel. The  air carrier sends this passenger information, along with the travel  itinerary, to the Secure Flight system 72 hours before the passenger’s  scheduled air travel. The Secure Flight system checks passenger data  against watchlists and TSA PreTM lists, and runs the data through the  low-risk rules in the TSA PreTM Risk Assessment algorithm, including  applying the random exclusion rate to some passengers. Secure Flight  then directs the air carrier to mark a passenger’s boarding pass for  enhanced screening or expedited screening, or to identify a passenger as  prohibited from boarding an aircraft or for standard screening. Figure 6  illustrates the process by which TSA uses Secure Flight to determine the  boarding pass result.
section_title: Passenger Eligibility Based on Real Time Threat Assessments Using Managed Inclusion Process
paragraphs: Managed Inclusion is designed to provide expedited screening to  passengers not deemed low risk prior to arriving at the airport. TSA uses  Managed Inclusion as a tool to direct passengers who are not on a TSA  PreTM list or designated as eligible for expedited screening via the TSA  PreTM Risk Assessments into the expedited screening lanes to increase  passenger throughput in these lanes when the volume of TSA PreTM- eligible passengers is low. In addition, Managed Inclusion was developed  to improve the efficiency of dedicated TSA PreTM screening lanes as  well as to help TSA reach its internal goal of providing expedited  screening to at least 25 percent of passengers by the end of calendar  year 2013. TSA randomly selects passengers to enter the Managed  Inclusion queue using a randomizer device that directs a certain  percentage of passengers not previously designated that day as eligible  for expedited screening to the TSA PreTM expedited screening lane. To  screen passengers who have been randomly directed into the expedited  screening lane, TSA uses real time threat assessments including  combinations of BDOs, canine teams and ETD devices to ensure that  passengers do not exhibit high-risk behaviors or otherwise present a risk  at the airport.
According to TSA, it designed the Managed Inclusion process using a  layered approach to provide security when providing expedited screening  to passengers via Managed Inclusion. Specifically, the Office of Security  Capabilities’ proof of concept design noted that the Managed Inclusion  process was designed to provide a more rigorous real-time threat  assessment layer of security when compared to standard screening or  TSA PreTM screening. According to the design concept, this real-time  threat assessment, utilizing both BDOs and canine teams, allows TSA to  provide expedited screening to passengers who have not been  designated as low risk without decreasing overall security effectiveness.  These layers include (1) the Secure Flight vetting TSA performs to  identify high-risk passengers required to undergo enhanced screening at  the checkpoint and to ensure these passengers are not directed to TSA  PreTM expedited screening lanes, (2) a randomization process that TSA  uses to include passengers into TSA Pre™screening lanes who  otherwise were not eligible for expedited screening, (3) BDOs who  observe passengers and look for certain high-risk behaviors, (4) canine  teams and ETD devices that help ensure that passengers have not  handled explosive materials prior to travel, and (5) an unpredictable  screening process involving walk-through metal detectors in expedited  screening lanes that randomly select a percentage of passengers for  additional screening.
subsections: section_title: Managed Inclusion Process
paragraphs: When passengers approach a security checkpoint that is operating  Managed Inclusion, they approach a TSO who is holding a randomizer  device, typically an iPad that directs the passenger to the expedited or  standard screening lane. TSA officials stated that the randomization layer  of security is intended to ensure that passengers cannot count on being  screened in the expedited screening lane even if they use a security  checkpoint that is operating Managed Inclusion. FSDs can adjust the  percentage of passengers randomly sent into the Managed Inclusion lane  depending on specific risk factors. Figure 7 illustrates how these layers of  security operate when FSDs use Managed Inclusion lanes.
According to TSA, it designed the Managed Inclusion process to use  BDOs stationed in the expedited screening lane as one of its layers of  security when Managed Inclusion is operational to observe passengers’  behavior as they move through the security checkpoint queue. When  BDOs observe certain behaviors that indicate a passenger may be higher  risk, the BDOs are to refer the passenger to a standard screening lane so  that the passenger can be screened using standard or enhanced  screening procedures. We have conducted past work on TSA’s behavior  detection analysis program, including the Screening of Passengers by  Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, which BDOs use to identify  potential high-risk passengers. In our November 2013 report, we  reported that although TSA has taken several positive steps to validate  the scientific basis and strengthen program management of behavior  detection analysis and the SPOT program, TSA has not demonstrated  that BDOs can reliably and effectively identify high-risk passengers who  may pose a threat to the U.S. aviation system. In our 2013 report, we  recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the TSA  Administrator to limit future funding support for the agency’s behavior  detection activities until TSA can provide scientifically validated evidence  that demonstrates that behavioral indicators can be used to identify  passengers who may pose a threat to aviation security. The Department  of Homeland Security did not concur with this recommendation; however,  in August 2014, TSA noted that it is taking actions to optimize the  effectiveness of its behavior detection program and plans to begin testing  this effort in October 2014.
According to a TSA decision memorandum and its accompanying  analysis, TSA uses canine teams and ETD devices at airports as an  additional layer of security when Managed Inclusion is operational to  determine whether passengers may have interacted with explosives prior  to arriving at the airport. In airports with canine teams, passengers must  walk past a canine and its handler in an environment where the canine is  trained to detect explosive odors and to alert the handler when a  passenger has any trace of explosives on his or her person. For example,  passengers in the Managed Inclusion lane may be directed to walk from  the travel document checker through the passageway and past the  canine teams to reach the X-ray belt and the walk-through metal detector.  According to TSA documents, the canines, when combined with the other  layers of security in the Managed Inclusion process provide effective  security. According to TSA, it made this determination by considering  the probability of canines detecting explosives on passengers, and then  designed the Managed Inclusion process to ensure that passengers  would encounter a canine a certain percentage of the time.
Our prior work examined data TSA had on its canine program, what these  data show, and to what extent TSA analyzed these data to identify  program trends. Further we analyzed the extent to which TSA deployed  canine teams using a risk-based approach and determined their  effectiveness prior to deployment. As a result of this work, we  recommended in January 2013, among other things, that TSA take  actions to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of canine teams.  The Department of Homeland Security concurred with this  recommendation and has taken steps to address it. Specifically,  according to TSA canine test results, TSA has conducted work to assess  canine teams and to ensure they meet the security effectiveness  thresholds TSA established for working in the Managed Inclusion lane;  and the canines met these thresholds as a requirement to screen  passengers in managed inclusion lanes.
In those airports where canines are unavailable, TSA uses ETD devices  as a layer of security when operating Managed Inclusion. TSOs stationed  at the ETD device are to select passengers to have their hands swabbed  as they move through the expedited screening lane. TSOs are to wait for  a passenger to proceed through the Managed Inclusion queue and  approach the device, where the TSO is to swab the passenger’s hands  with an ETD pad and place the pad in the ETD device to determine  whether any explosive residue is detected on the pad. Once the  passenger who was swabbed is cleared, the passenger then proceeds  through the lane to the X-ray belt and walk-through metal detector for  screening. TSA procedures require FSDs to meet certain performance  requirements when ETD devices are operating, and TSA data from  January 1, 2014, through April 1, 2014, show that these requirements  were not always met. Beginning in May 2014, TSA’s Office of Security  Operations began tracking compliance with the ETD swab requirements  and developed and implemented a process to ensure that the  requirements are met.
According to TSA, it uses unpredictable screening procedures as an  additional layer of security after passengers who are using expedited  screening pass through the walk-through metal detector. This random  selection of passengers for enhanced screening after they have passed  all security layers TSA uses for Managed Inclusion provides one more  chance for TSA to detect explosives on a passenger.
section_title: TSA Should Ensure that Its Effectiveness Testing of the Managed Inclusion Process is Conducted in Accordance with Established Methodological Practices
paragraphs: TSA officials stated that they tested the security effectiveness of the  individual components of the Managed Inclusion process before  implementing Managed Inclusion, and determined that each layer alone  provides an effective level of security. For example, TSA tested the threat  detection ability of its canines using a variety of variables such as  concealment location and the length of time the item was concealed prior  to the encounter with the canine team. We did not evaluate the security  effectiveness testing TSA conducted on the individual layers of the  Managed Inclusion process. However, we have previously conducted  work on several of the layers used in the Managed Inclusion process,  including BDOs, ETD, and canine teams and raised concerns regarding  their effectiveness and recommended actions to address those  concerns. As discussed earlier in this report, TSA has made progress in  addressing those recommendations. TSA determined through the initial  testing of the Managed Inclusion layers that Managed Inclusion provides  a higher level of security than TSA baseline security levels. In addition,  according to TSA standard operating procedures, Managed Inclusion  passengers are more likely than other passengers to be screened for  explosives. TSA officials stated that they have not yet tested the security  effectiveness of the overall Managed Inclusion process as it functions as  a whole, as TSA has been planning for such testing over the course of  the last year. TSA documentation shows that the Office of Security  Capabilities recommended in January 2013 that TSA test the security  effectiveness of Managed Inclusion as a system. According to officials,  TSA anticipates that testing will begin in October 2014 and estimates that  testing could take 12 to 18 months to complete. However, TSA could not  provide us with specifics or a plan or documentation showing how the  testing is to be conducted, the locations where it is to occur, how those  locations are to be selected, or the timeframes for conducting testing at  each location. Testing the security effectiveness of the Managed Inclusion  process is consistent with federal policy, as laid out in Executive Order  13450—Improving Government Program Performance.
We have previously reported on challenges TSA has faced in designing  studies and protocols to test the effectiveness of security systems and  programs in accordance with established methodological practices. For  example, in our March 2014 assessment of TSA’s acquisition of  Advanced Imagining Technology, we found that TSA conducted  operational and laboratory tests, but did not evaluate the performance of  the entire system, which is necessary to ensure that mission needs are  met. A key element of evaluation design is to define purpose and scope,  to establish what questions the evaluation will and will not address.
Further, in November 2013 we identified methodological weaknesses in  the overall design and data collection of TSA’s April 2011 validation  comparison study to determine the effectiveness of the SPOT program.
For example we found that TSA did not randomly select airports to  participate in the study, so the results were not generalizeable across  airports. In addition, we found that TSA collected the validation study data  unevenly and experienced challenges in collecting an adequate sample  size for the randomly selected passengers, facts that might have further  affected the representativeness of the findings. According to established  evaluation design practices, data collection should be sufficiently free of  bias or other significant errors that could lead to inaccurate conclusions.
Ensuring its planned effectiveness testing of the Managed Inclusion  process adheres to established evaluation design practices will help TSA  provide reasonable assurance that the effectiveness testing will yield  reliable results. The specific design limitations we identified in TSA’s  previous studies of Advanced Imaging Technology and SPOT may or  may not be relevant design issues for an assessment of the effectiveness  of the Managed Inclusion process, as evaluation design necessarily  differs based on the scope and nature of the question being addressed. In  general, evaluations are most likely to be successful when key steps are  addressed during design, including defining research questions  appropriate to the scope of the evaluation, and selecting appropriate  measures and study approaches that will permit valid conclusions.
section_title: TSA Could Improve Program Assessment by Aligning Goals with Measures and Has Estimated Savings from Expedited Screening for Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: TSA has two goals and one measure intended to assess the performance  of its expedited screening programs, but our analysis shows that the  goals and measure are not aligned. Also, TSA has estimated savings  from expedited screening and has reduced its fiscal year 2015 budget  request by the amount of the estimated savings.
subsections: section_title: TSA’s Expedited Screening Performance Measure Does Not Accurately Link to Goals on Passenger Eligibility
paragraphs: TSA has two goals intended to assess the performance of its expedited  screening programs and uses one measure to track progress toward  these goals. However, our analysis shows that the measure used does  not align with the goals. Specifically, TSA’s program goals are to ensure:  (1) that 25 percent of air passengers were eligible for expedited screening  by the end of calendar year 2013; and (2) that 50 percent of passengers  are eligible for expedited screening by the end of calendar year 2014.  According to TSA documents, TSA uses one measure—the total number  of air passengers screened daily using expedited screening as a  percentage of the total number of passengers screened daily—to assess  progress towards these goals. TSA collects data for this measure by  reporting, not the number of passengers designated as eligible for  expedited screening, but the number of passengers who actually receive  such screening. As noted earlier in this report, because expedited  screening is voluntary, not all passengers who are eligible necessarily  use expedited screening. For example, a passenger may be traveling with  a group in which not all passengers in the group are eligible for expedited  screening, so the passenger may choose to forgo expedited screening.  Also, TSA may not use boarding pass scanners at the airport or at a  specific checkpoint, which would preclude TSA from offering expedited  screening at the airport to passengers with TSA PreTM boarding passes  who were not otherwise eligible for expedited screening due to the age of  the passenger. As a result, the information that TSA is reporting to show  that it is meeting its goal may be understated and inaccurate.
TSA’s Chief Risk Officer agreed that the goals and the measure are not  linked, but said that tracking actual screening data rather than eligibility  data presents a more accurate picture of the expedited screening  program performance. Specifically, the Chief Risk Officer noted that  TSA’s definition of “eligible” is broader than passengers who receive the  TSA PreTM designation on the boarding pass and that eligible  passengers also include those individuals who have opted into the TSA  PreTM program as members of one of the TSA PreTM lists, and  passengers who fly on one of the participating TSA PreTM air carriers  who could become eligible through the TSA PreTM Risk Assessment  process. He stated that broadly measuring the number of passengers  eligible rather than those who receive a TSA PreTM boarding pass result  (making them eligible for expedited screening) would overstate progress  toward the eligibility goal. According to TSA, the Administrator set an  internal TSA target in September 2012 that 25 percent of daily travelers  screened by TSA were to receive some form of expedited screening by  the end of the calendar year 2013 and 50 percent by the end of the  calendar year 2014 and did so to encourage the development and  expansion of TSA’s risk-based security initiatives and expedited  screening of passengers. TSA also noted that it began achieving the 25  percent of passengers receiving expedited screening goal in November  2013 and attributed reaching this goal to an increase in the number of  participating air carriers from seven in July 2013 to nine in November  2013, an increase in the number of airports where TSA PreTM dedicated  screening lanes are available to over 100 airports in October 2013, the  implementation of TSA PreTM Risk Assessments on a flight-by-flight  basis in October 2013, and the increased use of Managed Inclusion in  October 2013.
While we agree that tracking actual screening data may provide insights  about expedited screening program performance, ensuring that the goals  and measure are aligned is important to provide more accurate  performance measurement data to guide program performance. Best  practices regarding the key attributes of successful performance  measurement state that performance measures should link and align with  agency-wide goals and the mission should be clearly communicated  throughout the organization. Furthermore, in response to a requirement  of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014, TSA  submitted a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate  and House of Representatives certifying that one in four (or 25 percent of)  passengers are eligible for expedited screening without lowering security  standards and outlined a strategy to increase the number of passengers  eligible for expedited screening to 50 percent by the end of calendar year  2014. Aligning TSA’s measures and goals could help ensure that TSA,  as well as lawmakers, has a clear and accurate picture of the program’s  performance and can make improvements as needed.
section_title: TSA’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Estimates Savings Resulting from Expedited Screening Programs
paragraphs: TSA’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes savings noted as a  budget decrease resulting from efficiencies anticipated from risk-based  security initiatives including expedited screening. In its fiscal year 2015  budget request, TSA estimated savings of $100 million as a result of risk- based security initiatives and primarily based these savings on an  expected reduction in screening staff at airports. Specifically, TSA  estimated that it could reduce staff costs by about $92 million (or 1,441  full-time-equivalent staff) with an additional savings of almost $8 million  realized from an associated reduction in indirect costs such as training,  information technology support, and recruitment, among other expenses.  According to TSA officials, implementing expedited screening allows for  staff reductions because TSA is able to operate fewer screening lanes  while maintaining throughput rates and short wait times. Also, TSA  officials noted that these staff reductions are to be realized through staff  attrition. Table 2 shows TSA’s estimated cost savings as a result of risk- based security initiatives.
Identifying potential cost savings and including these savings amounts in  proposed budgets is consistent with Office of Management and Budget  federal budgeting guidance. Specifically, for the fiscal year 2014 budget  cycle, the Office of Management and Budget instructed agencies to  identify programs where legislative, budget, or administrative changes  could improve program effectiveness and efficiency and result in cost  savings so that the deficit reductions included in the Budget Control Act of  2011 could be realized. Further, the Office of Management and  Budget’s fiscal year 2015 budget guidance instructed agencies to  continue to identify areas where cost savings might be realized,  consistent with the fiscal year 2014 budget guidance. In addition,  identifying potential savings from program efficiencies in spending  estimates is consistent with Office of Management and Budget guidance  for developing budget submissions and included in the instructions  provided to federal agencies for preparing annual budgets. We  compared TSA’s savings estimates with the Office of Management and  Budget guidance for preparing agency budgets and found that TSA’s  estimates were consistent with this guidance. Specifically, the guidance  states that agencies’ budgets must reflect all requirements anticipated by  the agency at the time of the budget submission, including budget  decreases for activities proposed for reduction.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: TSA’s new methods to assess passenger risk, such as TSA PreTM Risk  Assessments and Managed Inclusion, have significantly increased the  use of expedited screening. As a result, it will be important for TSA to  evaluate the security effectiveness of the Managed Inclusion process as a  whole, to ensure that it is functioning as intended and that passengers are  being screened at a level commensurate with their risk. According to  TSA, this testing is scheduled to begin in October 2014 and could take 12  to 18 months to complete. Ensuring that its planned effectiveness testing  of the Managed Inclusion process adheres to established evaluation  design practices will help TSA provide reasonable assurance that the  effectiveness testing yields reliable results. Regarding overall program  performance, although TSA collects information to assess the  performance of its expedited screening programs, its assessment could  be improved because the performance goals and the measures used to  evaluate those goals are currently not aligned. Aligning TSA’s measures  and goals could help ensure that TSA, as well as lawmakers, has a clear  and accurate picture of the program’s performance and can make  improvements as needed.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: GAO is recommending that TSA take the following two actions.
To ensure that TSA’s planned testing yields reliable results, we  recommend that the TSA Administrator take steps to ensure that TSA’s  planned effectiveness testing of the Managed Inclusion process adheres  to established evaluation design practices.
To ensure that TSA has accurate information by which to measure the  performance of its expedited screening programs, we recommend that  the TSA Administrator ensure that the expedited screening performance  goals and measures align.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided DHS with a copy of this report for review and comment. On  November 19, 2014, DHS provided written comments, which are  summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix II. DHS concurred  with our two recommendations and described actions under way or  planned to address them. In addition, DHS provided written technical  comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
DHS concurred with our first recommendation that TSA take steps to  ensure that its planned effectiveness testing of the Managed Inclusion  process adheres to established evaluation practices. DHS stated that  TSA plans to use a test and evaluation process—which calls for the  preparation of test and evaluation framework documents including plans,  analyses, and a final report describing the test results—for its planned  effectiveness testing of Managed Inclusion. In addition, TSA has begun   collaborating with National Institute of Standards and Technology  statistical engineering staff who are to share their knowledge and  experience with TSA as well as assist with the design, analysis, and  reporting of the test and evaluation process. These actions, if  implemented effectively, should address the intent of our  recommendation.
DHS concurred with our second recommendation that TSA ensure that  the expedited screening performance goals and measure align. According  to DHS, all measures are approved by DHS and the Office of  Management and Budget, and changes must be approved by both  agencies. In June 2014, TSA began working with both agencies to modify  the measure to ensure that it aligned with the expedited screening goals.  This action, once completed, should address the intention of our  recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate Congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and  other interested parties. In addition, this report will be made publicly  available at no extra charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please  contact Jennifer A. Grover at 202-512-7141 or GroverJ@gao.gov. Key  contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Listing of 118 Airports at Which Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Offers Expedited Screening with Dedicated Screening Lanes as of April 2014
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Glenn Davis (Assistant Director),  Ellen Wolfe (Analyst-in-Charge), Chuck Bausell, Eric Hauswirth, Suling  Homsy, Susan Hsu, Brendan Kretzschmar, Stanley Kostyla, Thomas  Lombardi, Linda Miller, and Jean Orland made key contributions to this  report.