TSA has various processes for receiving and addressing air passenger complaints about the screening systems, procedures, and personnel at airport security checkpoints. Specifically, several TSA headquarters units and local TSA airport staff have responsibility and processes for receiving and addressing these complaints, and, if necessary, referring these complaints to other TSA offices for resolution. Figure 1 depicts the four primary TSA headquarters units and the local TSA airport staff who are responsible for receiving and addressing air passenger screening complaints. As highlighted in figure 1, the TSA Contact Center (TCC) receives, documents, and helps resolve screening complaints that air passengers make by telephone and e-mail. The TCC is TSA’s primary point of contact for collecting, documenting, and responding to public questions, concerns, or complaints regarding TSA security policies, procedures, and programs; reports and claims of lost, stolen, or damaged items; and employment issues. These officials include Lead and Supervisory Transportation Security Officers as well as Transportation Security Managers. At SPP airports, they include supervisory contractor officials. FSDs and Assistant Federal Security Directors are responsible for overseeing TSA security programs at all commercial airports. According to the Assistant Administrator of TSA’s Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement, the agency is working on an initiative under which an unspecified number of TSA staff will receive training as “passenger advocates” and begin working in this capacity to address air passenger complaints at security checkpoints by January 2013. screener staff at other commercial airports. Customer Support Managers work in conjunction with other FSD staff to resolve customer complaints and communicate the status and resolution of complaints to air passengers. They are also responsible for ensuring security procedures and practices are consistently and effectively communicated to air passengers, to the extent permitted by law and regulation. TSA has an operations directive that specifies roles, responsibilities, and time frames for resolving and responding to screening complaints that air passengers submit to the TCC and FSD staff. This directive does not apply to complaints received through other mechanisms, as we discuss later in this report. The agency has also given TSA headquarters units and FSDs discretion in addressing these complaints at airports under their jurisdiction, according to TSA officials. This operations directive provides instructions for processing public inquiries, including air passenger screening complaints, received by the TCC and FSD staff. The directive indicates that inquiries received by the TCC will be answered by the TCC or will be forwarded to the appropriate FSD staff for response, and that inquiries received by FSD staff will be answered by FSD staff or will be forwarded to the TCC for response. In addition, the operations directive provides several time frames for responding to complaints. For example, TSA should respond within 48 hours for e-mail inquiries addressed by the TCC, and within 72 hours for telephone inquiries addressed by the TCC. Overall, upon receiving a complaint, TSA headquarters units and local TSA airport staff may address the complaint directly or refer it to other offices for review and resolution after determining which one has the necessary expertise and knowledge to address the alleged incident. For example, according to TSA officials, if an air passenger submits the complaint through the TCC, TCC staff attempt to resolve it by providing a response to the air passenger using pertinent template language that explains TSA policy and screening procedures. Alternatively, the TCC may refer screening complaints for resolution to other TSA headquarters offices, depending on the specific allegation. For example, complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of a disability or medical condition are referred to the Disability Branch. Also, the TCC may forward complaints about customer service to the customer service representative at the airport identified in the complaint for investigation and resolution. Alternatively, if an air passenger submits a complaint directly to TSA staff at the airport, it is the responsibility of these staff members to investigate and resolve the complaint or, if necessary, refer it to TSA units at headquarters, such as the Disability Branch. For example, according to TSA officials, if an air passenger makes a complaint in person at the checkpoint, TSA supervisors and managers are to attempt to resolve the complaint at the checkpoint before the situation escalates. Regardless of whether a complaint is initially received by a TSA headquarters unit or at the airport at which the incident took place, according to TSA officials, local TSA airport officials generally conduct most follow-up investigations since they are well placed to collect additional airport-specific information and interview local staff. However, specific actions taken to investigate and resolve complaints vary by airport. For example, customer service representatives may be involved in reviewing screening complaints, obtaining additional information from the air passengers to determine when and where the incident took place, and reviewing video footage of the incident to help identify additional details of the incident, such as the identity of the screener(s) who may have been involved in the incident and what had actually happened during the incident. If the situation warrants it, the customer service representative may forward the complaint as well as the video footage to the TSA screening supervisor or manager for additional review and action. The supervisor or manager may review the video footage and obtain a statement from the screener to determine what happened during the incident and the extent to which the screener may have been at fault—for example, whether the screener violated TSA standard operating procedures, or behaved unprofessionally or inappropriately toward the air passenger. Depending on the nature and severity of the allegation, TSA airport staff may also elevate the complaint and evidence to the airport’s Assistant Federal Security Director (AFSD) for Screening or to TSA headquarters units, such as the Disability Branch or the Office of Inspections, for formal investigation. If the investigation were to find fault with the screener, the screener’s supervisor or manager is to determine the corrective action to be taken. Corrective actions specified in TSA’s guidance range from mandating the screener to take additional training to correct the behavior to terminating the screener’s employment for multiple repeat offenses or single egregious actions, such as theft of air passenger property. Following the outcome of the investigation and any resulting corrective actions, the TSA headquarters unit or the FSD or his/her staff, such as a customer service representative, is to communicate the status of the resolution to the air passenger—such as by reiterating that TSA procedures were followed or by issuing an apology and informing the air passenger that corrective actions were taken. TSA’s five centralized mechanisms for receiving air passenger screening complaints provide the agency with a significant amount of information it can use to monitor or enhance screening operations. However, TSA does not have agencywide policy, consistent processes, or an agency focal point to guide the receipt of these complaints or to use complaint information to inform management about the nature and extent of the screening complaints to help improve screening operations and customer service. TSA receives and documents screening complaints that air passengers submit through four headquarters units—the TCC, the Executive Secretariat, the Multicultural Branch, and the Disability Branch—as well as the Talk to TSA web-based feedback mechanism, which e-mails the screening complaint information directly to designated TSA airport staff. As shown in figure 3, the number of complaints submitted through these mechanisms fluctuated somewhat from October 2009 through June 2012. The major exception was a very large increase in the number of complaints submitted to three mechanisms in November and December 2010, which may be attributed to several factors, including a November 2010 public opt-out campaign reported by the media to protest the use of Advanced Imaging Technology and enhanced pat-down procedures for screening air passengers. The volume of complaints that TSA received through each of its five main mechanisms varied from October 2009 through June 2012. Also, because these mechanisms use different categories for screening complaints and have different capabilities for data analysis, we were not able to combine the data from these mechanisms to discuss overall patterns and trends in volume or categories of complaints. A discussion of complaint information in each mechanism follows. The TCC received the bulk of the air passenger screening complaints that the agency documented during this time period. Using TCC data, TSA has reported that it receives about 750,000 public inquiries annually through the TCC and that 8 percent of these inquiries involve air passenger complaints (including complaints about screening). As noted below, however, this information does not include complaint data from other TSA complaint mechanisms. Specifically, the TCC received a total of 39,616 screening complaints that air passengers submitted by e-mail and telephone from October 2009 through June 2012. The TCC divides screening complaints into seven main categories, five having multiple subcategories. Figure 4 shows the total numbers of screening complaints by the seven main TCC categories, such as 17,153 complaints about pat- down procedures. Figure 5 depicts the numbers of screening complaints that the TCC received from October 2009 through June 2012 by the four main TCC categories having the most complaints. As shown in figure 5, the numbers of screening complaints in these four categories remained relatively stable over this period. The major exception was a very large increase in the number of complaints about pat-down procedures in November and December 2010 and continuing periods of a relatively higher level of pat- down complaints through September 2011. As mentioned before, this increase in complaints may be attributed to several factors, including the November 2010 public opt-out campaign reported by the media to protest the use of Advanced Imaging Technology and enhanced pat-down procedures for screening air passengers. The Office of the Executive Secretariat received 4,011 complaints that air passengers submitted by mail. For instance, these complaints include screening complaints related to, among other issues, Advanced Imaging Technology and enhanced pat-down procedures. The Multicultural Branch received 2,899 written screening complaints alleging violations of civil rights and civil liberties, 469 of which it processed as cases. Figure 6 shows the number of cases, by 11 categories, that the branch processed, such as 141 cases related to allegations of discrimination based on race or ethnicity. The Disability Branch received 920 written screening complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and medical condition. From these, the branch processed 1,233 cases. Figure 7 shows the number of cases, by 27 categories, that the branch processed, such as 201 cases related to inappropriate screening. The Talk to TSA web-based mechanism received 4,506 air passenger screening complaints from April 2011 through June 2012. When submitting complaints through this mechanism, air passengers can select up to five complaint categories from a list of 20 possible categories. Figure 8 shows the number of screening complaints by 20 categories that the branch received, such as 1,512 complaints about the professionalism of TSA staff during the screening process. TSA has established five centralized mechanisms for receiving air passenger complaints, but it has not established an agencywide policy, consistent processes, or a focal point to guide receipt and use of this information to inform management about the nature and extent of the screening complaints to help improve screening operations and customer service. With regard to agencywide policy, TSA has not established a policy to guide airports’ efforts to receive air passenger complaints. In the absence of such a policy, TSA officials at airports have wide discretion in how they implement TSA’s air passenger complaint process, including how they receive and document the complaints. For example, at the six airports that we contacted, the use of customer comment cards, which the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) considers a relatively inexpensive means for government agencies to receive customer feedback, varied by airport. Specifically, customer comment cards were not used at two of the six airports we contacted, according to TSA officials at those airports, while at the other four airports customer comment cards were used to obtain air passenger input in varying ways. At two of these four airports, customer comment cards were on display at counters in the security checkpoints. At the other two airports, neither customer comment cards nor information about the cards was on display, but the cards were available to air passengers upon request, according to TSA airport officials. Passengers who are concerned about being late for their flight or about appearing uncooperative may be reluctant to ask for such cards, however. In addition, when TSA receives a customer comment card, either through air passengers mailing the cards, giving them to TSA screening supervisors or managers, or depositing the cards in a box at the security checkpoint, the card is to go to a customer service representative at the airport. However, TSA does not have a policy requiring that customer service representatives track these comment card submissions or report them to one of TSA’s five centralized mechanisms for receiving complaints if the card includes a complaint. As a result, TSA does not know the full nature and extent of the complaints that air passengers make through customer comment cards. Also, TSA officials reported that the agency does not require TSA airport staff to collect and document information on the screening complaints that air passengers submit in person at the airport level because the agency has given these officials broad discretion in addressing these screening complaints. However, without an agencywide policy to guide the receipt and tracking of screening complaints at the airport level, TSA does not have reasonable assurance that headquarters and airport entities involved in the processes of receiving, tracking, and reporting these complaints are conducting these activities consistently. Further, TSA does not have a process to use all the information it currently collects in its efforts to inform the public of the nature and extent of air passenger screening complaints, monitor air passenger satisfaction with screening operations, and identify patterns and trends in screening complaints to help improve screening operations and customer service. For example, TSA has five centralized mechanisms through which it receives air passenger complaints, but the agency does not combine information from all of these sources to analyze the full nature and extent of air passenger screening complaints. TSA officials have noted that the agency receives about 750,000 contacts per year from the public by e- mail and telephone through the TCC, and that about 8 percent of these contacts are related to complaints. However, this information does not include data on complaints received through other headquarters units or the Talk to TSA web-based form. We recognize that differences in complaint categories among the various databases could hinder any efforts by TSA to combine the complaint data, which we discuss further below. TSA informs the public of the nature and extent of air passenger screening complaints through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s monthly Air Travel Consumer Report, but the number TSA reports in this publication only includes complaints received through the TCC and does not include the complaints TSA received through its other four mechanisms. The July 2012 report, for example, noted that TSA had received about 900 air passenger screening complaints in May 2012, with screening complaints about courtesy and personal property constituting the bulk of the complaints and screening complaints about processing time and screening procedures constituting the rest of the complaints. Further, TSA is using only the complaints received through the TCC to calculate an air passenger satisfaction indicator in its Office of Security Operations’ Executive Scorecard. According to TSA, the purpose of this scorecard is for FSD management and staff to monitor operational effectiveness of airport security checkpoints and make changes as needed, such as to improve screening operations and customer service. TSA officials further stated that the agency has primarily been using the TCC because the TCC information on air passenger screening complaints is readily available. According to the Assistant Administrator of TSA’s Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement, partly as a result of our review, the agency began channeling information from the Talk to TSA database to the TCC in early October 2012. However, it is unclear whether the agency will compile and analyze data from the Talk to TSA database and its other centralized mechanisms in its efforts to inform the public about the nature and extent of screening complaints. It is also unclear whether these efforts will include data on screening complaints submitted locally through customer comment cards or in person at airport security checkpoints. In addition, as discussed earlier, because TSA does not have a consistent process for categorizing air passenger complaints data, including standardized categories of complaints, it is unable to compile and analyze all of the data to identify patterns and trends. Specifically, each of the five centralized mechanisms has different screening complaint categories and different capabilities to analyze the data. As a result, TSA cannot compile information from all five mechanisms to identify patterns and trends in air passenger complaints and monitor its efforts to resolve complaints on a systemic basis. For example, while the TCC database and the Talk to TSA database each may have categories with identical or similar names, such as Advanced Imaging Technology and pat-downs, other categories are unique to certain databases. For instance, the TCC database does not have categories or subcategories corresponding to the Talk to TSA categories of carry-on property out of view, permitted/prohibited items, expert traveler and family lanes, or liquids, among others. As a result, TSA cannot combine the data from different databases to identify whether particular aspects of the screening experience may warrant additional attention or whether TSA’s efforts to improve customer service are having any effect on the number of complaints. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for agencies to develop control activities, such as policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s directives. A consistent policy to guide local TSA officials’ efforts to receive, track, and report complaints would help provide TSA reasonable assurance that these activities are being conducted in a consistent manner throughout commercial airports and provide the agency with improved ability to oversee these local efforts. Moreover, a process to systematically collect information on air passenger complaints from all mechanisms, including standardization of the categories of air passenger complaints to provide a basis for comparison, would give TSA a more comprehensive picture of the volume, nature, and extent of air passenger screening complaints and better enable the agency to improve screening operations and customer service. GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. interviewed stated that the five mechanisms were designed at different times and for different purposes, and they agreed that the agency could benefit from a consistent complaints policy, a process to collect information from all mechanisms, and a focal point to coordinate these efforts. TSA has several methods to inform air passengers about its processes for making screening complaints; however, as with receipt and use of screening complaint data, it does not have an agencywide policy, guidance, and a focal point to guide these efforts, or mechanisms to share information on guidance and best practices among TSA airport staff to ensure consistency in making air passengers aware of TSA processes for submitting complaints about the screening process. At the headquarters level, TSA’s primary method for providing information to air passengers about TSA screening policies and processes is through the agency’s website. During fiscal year 2012, TSA made improvements to its website to make it easier for air passengers to find information about how to provide feedback to TSA, including compliments and complaints, according to TSA officials. For example, the home page of TSA’s website currently displays an icon that allows air passengers to ask questions or submit feedback directly to TSA staff via an electronic form. The home page also displays an icon that provides information for air passengers to contact the TCC, which receives the majority of documented air- passenger-screening-related complaints, and other TSA units involved in addressing screening complaints. At the airport level, TSA has developed several methods that local TSA staff can use to provide information at the checkpoints for air passengers to submit feedback to TSA, such as displaying signs and stickers and providing customer comment cards that contain information for contacting TSA and that allow air passengers to submit compliments and complaints. Figure 9 shows examples of TSA’s methods for informing air passengers on how to submit feedback to the agency. TSA has developed standard signs, stickers, and customer comment cards that can be used at airport checkpoints to inform air passengers about how to submit feedback to the agency; however, in the absence of agencywide policy and guidance to inform air passengers, FSDs have discretion in how and whether to use these methods. As a result, there was inconsistent implementation of these methods at the six airports we contacted. For example, at one airport we visited, all four checkpoints had visible signs and stickers advertising TSA’s contact information, while at another airport, we did not observe any signs or visible materials at the checkpoints advertising how to contact TSA, and at a third airport, we observed signs that were partially obscured from air passengers’ view. Specifically, at one checkpoint at that third airport, we observed a sign with a quick response code for providing feedback to TSA about passengers’ screening experience. However, this sign was placed in a corner away from direct air passenger traffic. Also, as previously discussed, at two of six airports we contacted, customer comment cards were displayed at the checkpoint, while at two other airports customer comment cards were provided only to air passengers who specifically ask for the cards or TSA contact information or who request to speak with a screening supervisor or manager, according to TSA airport officials. As mentioned earlier, passengers who are concerned about being late for their flight or about appearing uncooperative may be reluctant to ask for such cards, however. At the remaining two airports, customer comment cards were not used, according to TSA officials at those airports. Representatives from four of the eight aviation industry groups that we interviewed also stated that the type and amount of information provided to air passengers about feedback mechanisms, such as how to submit complaints, vary among airports. TSA airport officials we interviewed at three of the six airports we contacted stated that the agency could take additional actions to enhance air passenger awareness of TSA’s complaint processes, such as posting information on shuttle buses or providing fact sheets or brochures to air passengers earlier in the screening process or during airport check-in. For example, an official at one airport suggested that TSA display audio or video materials describing TSA’s complaint process, rather than posting more signs. Also, as we previously discussed, TSA’s screening complaint processes entail taking corrective actions to improve screening systems, procedures, and staff. However, if air passengers wish to submit screening complaints but are not aware of the processes for doing so, air passengers may be less likely to submit complaints to the agency, thus potentially limiting the agency’s efforts to identify systemic issues and take corrective actions or make any needed improvements to the screening process. The Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, directed TSA to make every effort to ensure members of the traveling public are aware of the procedures and process for making complaints about passenger screening. Moreover, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that in order to ensure effective communication to achieve agency goals, management should ensure there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining information from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency’s achieving its goals. The standards also call for agencies to develop control activities, such as policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s directives. TSA has methods and made efforts to inform air passengers about complaint processes, but opportunities exist to increase air passenger awareness, such as through greater use of the TSA website and brochures or other materials displayed or provided at airport checkpoints, as well as through more consistent implementation of these efforts at airports. TSA officials at four of the six airports we contacted also said that the agency could do more to share best practices among customer service representatives for addressing passenger complaints, including for informing air passengers about complaint processes. For example, TSA holds periodic conference calls for Customer Support Managers to discuss customer service. However, Customer Support Managers have not used this mechanism to discuss best practices for informing air passengers about processes for submitting complaints, according to the officials we interviewed. Also, TSA has not sponsored other information-sharing mechanisms, such as training or conferences, for Customer Support Managers to learn about best practices for informing air passengers, among other things. TSA officials also recognize that passengers may intentionally choose not to submit their complaints to TSA at the airport checkpoint because of the perception that raising a complaint could result in being unfairly subjected to additional screening or being treated rudely by screening officials. In addition, TSA does not have a focal point to coordinate agencywide policy for informing air passengers about complaint processes, or to suggest additional refinements to the overall process for increasing air passenger awareness of the complaints mechanisms. Accordingly, greater awareness of TSA complaint processes could help alleviate passengers’ potential reluctance to submit complaints at the checkpoint. An agencywide policy to inform the public about the processes for making complaints, a focal point for developing this policy and guiding TSA’s efforts to implement it, and mechanisms for sharing best practices among local TSA officials could help provide TSA reasonable assurance that these activities are being conducted in a consistent manner across commercial airports and help local TSA officials better inform the public by learning from one another about what practices work well. TSA’s complaint resolution processes do not fully conform to standards of independence established to help ensure that these types of processes are fair, impartial, and credible. Specifically, at the airport level, TSA officials who are responsible for resolving air passenger complaints (referred to in this report as complaint investigators) are not independent of the TSA airport staff who are the subjects of the complaints. Instead, complaint investigators are generally located in the same airport and report to the same chain of command as the individuals who are cited in the complaints. As previously discussed, TSA receives the bulk of the documented screening complaints via the TCC, and, if necessary, these complaints are ultimately investigated and resolved at the local airport level. Under TSA’s process, complaints may be referred to other TSA offices, such as TSA’s Disability and Multicultural Branches. These TSA branches address complaints from all air passengers with disabilities or medical conditions or from air passengers alleging violations of other civil rights or civil liberties. However, all screener-related complaints are investigated at the airport level, even for complaints that are initially referred to the Disability or Multicultural Branch. The American Bar Association Revised Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices, which can be used to guide federal complaint processes, states that a key indicator of independence is whether anyone subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction can control or limit the ombudsman’s performance of assigned duties. Further, the ombudsman is to conduct inquiries and investigations in an impartial manner, free from initial bias and conflicts of interest. Similarly, the U.S. Ombudsman Association advocates that to maintain independence, the ombudsman should have the discretion to prescribe how complaints are to be made, received, and acted upon, including the scope and manner of investigations. Moreover, to ensure impartiality, the ombudsman should absent himself or herself from involvement in complaints where a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest may exist. These standards maintain that independence and impartiality are important when addressing complaints because they establish confidence that the process is fair and credible. While TSA is not required to comply with ombudsman standards, these voluntary standards can serve as a useful guideline for implementing the core principles of an effective complaint- handling process. In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that key duties and responsibilities need to be divided or segregated among different people. At all six airports that we contacted, TSA Customer Support Managers stated that they receive air passenger complaints, review video footage of the incident, and communicate with complainants about the status and resolution of their complaints. Customer Support Managers also stated that they do not conduct formal investigations to determine the cause of a complaint or whether the screener involved in the complaint was at fault or the air passenger was misinformed. Rather, at the five airports that we contacted at which TSA has direct responsibility for screening operations, the Customer Support Managers collect information about the facts and circumstances related to the complaint and forward this information to the screener’s supervisory chain. At these five airports, the TSA screener supervisor or manager is responsible for obtaining the screener’s statement and determining fault as well as any corrective actions that may be taken against the screener. However, TSA Customer Support Managers as well as all TSA screening personnel, including TSA screening supervisors and managers, report to FSDs, and are therefore in the same chain of command as the subjects of air passenger complaints. Because FSDs may be concerned about complaints reflecting negatively on their management of TSA screening operations, this raises questions about independence and the appearance of impartiality and their ability to conduct credible, unbiased investigations. Figure 10 depicts a simplified example of the typical reporting structure at airports at which TSA has direct responsibility for screening operations. TSA officials stated that the desire to resolve complaints locally led to TSA’s decision to allow complaint investigators to be located in the same airport with those whom they are investigating. Also, TSA officials noted that resource constraints may limit the agency’s ability to send TSA officials from headquarters offices to conduct independent investigations of complaints at each airport. However, the lack of independence of the complaint investigators creates the potential for a conflict of interest to arise between the investigator and the individual under investigation. For this reason, in accordance with ombudsman standards, it is important for the structure of the complaint process to ensure the independence of complaint investigators in order to maintain impartial investigations, as well as to maintain the appearance of impartiality during investigations, not only to ensure that they are being fair, but also to uphold the credibility of the complaint process. Having a more independent complaint resolution process would better position TSA to make informed and unbiased decisions about complaints and ensure that corrective actions are taken, as needed, against screeners who are reported to have exhibited unprofessional or inappropriate behavior with air passengers. While TSA has an Ombudsman Division that could help ensure greater independence in the complaint processes, it primarily focuses on handling internal personnel matters and is not yet fully equipped to address external complaints from air passengers, according to the head of that division. However, recognizing the importance of independence in the complaint processes, TSA is developing a new process for referring air passenger complaints directly to this office from airports and for providing air passengers an independent avenue to make complaints about airport checkpoint screening. In August 2012, during the course of our review, TSA’s Ombudsman Division began addressing a small number of air passenger complaints forwarded from the TCC, according to the head of that division. TSA also began advertising the division’s new role in addressing passenger screening complaints via the TSA website in October 2012. The Assistant Administrator of TSA’s Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement stated that she expected the Ombudsman Division to begin addressing a greater number of air passenger complaints as a result. According to the Assistant Administrator, the division will not handle complaints for which there exists an established process that includes an appeal function, such as disability complaints or other civil rights or civil liberties complaints, in order to avoid duplication of currently established processes. Since the external function of the Ombudsman Division has not yet been fully implemented, it is too early to assess the extent to which this new function of the complaints resolution process will conform to professional standards for organizational independence, and help mitigate possible concerns about impartiality and objectivity. TSA is also in the process of developing a Passenger Advocate Program, which the agency plans to begin implementing by January 2013, according to the Assistant Administrator of TSA’s Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement. This program will entail training selected TSA airport staff to take on a collateral passenger advocate role, according to that official. Passenger advocates will respond in real time to identify and resolve traveler-related screening complaints quickly, consistent with TSA policies and screening procedures, according to the Assistant Administrator. Advocates will also respond to air passenger requests, assist air passengers with medical conditions or disabilities, and be prepared to assist air passengers who provide advance notification to TSA via the national TSA Cares helpline. According to the Assistant Administrator, the Passenger Advocate Program will work in conjunction with the new external complaint function of the Ombudsman Division and provide air passenger advocates with the option to refer air passengers directly to the Ombudsman Division. Because passenger advocates are to serve under the FSD chain of command, this arrangement also raises questions about whether there is a lack of independence between passenger advocates and the subjects of air passenger complaints. The Assistant Administrator explained that any perception of lack of independence would be addressed by training passenger advocates to explain to air passengers that they may submit complaints directly to the Ombudsman, who is outside of the airport chain of command. Because this program has not yet been approved by the TSA Administrator or implemented, it is too early to assess the extent to which passenger advocates will help mitigate possible concerns about impartiality and objectivity in the complaint processes. According to available data, TSA receives a relatively small number of complaints considering the millions of air passengers the agency screens each month. However, the agency’s ability to understand the full nature and extent of those complaints is limited because TSA does not systematically collect some of the screening complaint data at the airport level, uses only some of the data it has available to it in its reports and analysis, and collects the data in a manner that makes it difficult for the agency to aggregate and analyze the data for trends. Further, the inconsistent nature of implementation of the screening complaint processes at commercial airports limits TSA’s ability to oversee these efforts. Thus, a policy to consistently guide agencywide efforts to receive, track, and report air passenger screening complaints would help provide TSA reasonable assurance that TSA headquarters and airport entities are conducting these activities consistently. Moreover, a consistent process to systematically analyze information on air passenger screening complaints from all mechanisms for receiving complaints, including standardized screening complaint categories and capabilities for data analysis, would give TSA a more comprehensive picture of the volume, nature, and extent of air passenger screening complaints and better enable the agency to improve screening operations and customer service. In addition, designating a focal point for developing and coordinating agencywide policy on air passenger screening complaint processes, guiding the analysis and use of the agency’s screening complaint data, and informing the public about the nature and extent of screening complaints would help ensure that these efforts are implemented consistently throughout the agency. Finally, TSA has a number of methods to inform the public about its processes for submitting screening complaints, but does not have an agencywide policy to guide these efforts or mechanisms for sharing best practices for informing air passengers about screening complaint processes, which could help TSA staff—particularly at the airport level—better inform the public by learning from one another about what is working well. To improve TSA’s oversight of air passenger screening complaint processes, we recommend that the Administrator of TSA take the following four actions, consistent with standards for internal control, to establish a consistent policy to guide agencywide efforts for receiving, tracking, and reporting air passenger screening complaints; establish a process to systematically compile and analyze information on air passenger screening complaints from all complaint mechanisms; designate a focal point to develop and coordinate agencywide policy on screening complaint processes, guide the analysis and use of the agency’s screening complaint data, and inform the public about the nature and extent of screening complaints; and establish agencywide policy to guide TSA’s efforts to inform air passengers about the screening complaint processes and establish mechanisms, particularly at the airport level, to share information on best practices for informing air passengers about the screening complaint processes. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comment. DHS, in written comments received October 16, 2012, concurred with the recommendations and identified actions taken, under way, or planned to implement the recommendations. Written comments are summarized below, and official DHS comments are reproduced in appendix I. In addition, DHS provided written technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. In response to our recommendation that TSA establish a consistent policy to guide agencywide efforts for receiving, tracking, and reporting air passenger screening complaints, DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that TSA would review current intake and processing procedures at headquarters and in the field and develop policy, as appropriate, to better guide the efforts of headquarters and field locations in receiving, tracking, and reporting air passenger screening complaints. We believe that these are beneficial steps that would address our recommendation, provided that the resulting policy refinements improve the existing processes for receiving, tracking, and reporting all air passenger screening complaints, including the screening complaints that air passengers submit locally at airports through comment cards or in person at security checkpoints. In response to our recommendation that TSA establish a process to systematically compile and analyze information on air passenger screening complaints from all complaint mechanisms, DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that TSA, through the TCC, is taking steps to increase its analysis of passenger complaint information and will build on this effort to further compile and analyze information on air passenger screening complaints. However, DHS did not provide additional details on the steps TSA is taking, so we cannot comment on the extent to which these steps will fully address our recommendation. In its technical comments, TSA stated that the agency began channeling information from the Talk to TSA database to the TCC on October 3, 2012, and we updated our report accordingly. However, it is still unclear whether TSA will compile and analyze data from the Talk to TSA database and its other centralized mechanisms in its efforts to inform the public about the nature and extent of screening complaints and whether these efforts will include data on screening complaints submitted locally at airports through customer comment cards or in person at airport security checkpoints. It is also unclear how TSA will address the difficulties we identified in collecting standardized screening data across different complaint categories and mechanisms. As highlighted in our report, establishing a consistent process to systematically compile and analyze information on air passenger screening complaints will help provide TSA with a more comprehensive picture of the volume, nature, and extent of air passenger screening complaints and better enable the agency to improve screening operations and customer service for the traveling public. In response to our recommendation that TSA designate a focal point for the complaints identification, analysis, and public outreach process, DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement is the focal point for overseeing the key TSA entities involved with processing passenger screening complaints. We are encouraged that the agency has identified a focal point for these efforts but note that the Assistant Administrator only oversees the TSA’s complaint-related processes in the Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement. Thus, it will be important for the Assistant Administrator to coordinate with other TSA offices when acting as the TSA focal point to address the weaknesses we identified in our report. For example, as mentioned in DHS’s comment letter, it will be important for the Assistant Administrator to work closely with the office of the Assistant Administrator of Security Operations because this office oversees screening operations at commercial airports and security operations staff in the field who receive screening complaints submitted through customer comment cards or in person at airport security checkpoints. The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement will also need to coordinate with the Office of the Executive Secretariat, which is not mentioned in DHS’s comment letter, given the thousands of air passenger complaints that this office receives, as well as with other DHS and TSA offices that have a role in the air passenger complaint processes— including, but not limited to, the TSA Office of Inspections, TSA Office of Legislative Affairs, and the DHS Office of the Inspector General. In response to our recommendation that TSA establish agencywide policy to guide TSA’s efforts to inform air passengers about the screening complaint processes and establish mechanisms, particularly at the airport level, to share information on best practices for informing air passengers about the screening complaint processes, DHS concurred with the recommendation. DHS stated that TSA would develop a policy to better inform air passengers about the screening complaint processes, to include mechanisms for identifying and sharing best practices for implementing these processes at the airport level. We will continue to monitor TSA’s progress in implementing this recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the TSA Administrator, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4379 or at lords@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on that last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. In addition to the contact named above, Jessica Lucas-Judy (Assistant Director), Carissa Bryant, and Juan Tapia-Videla made significant contributions to the work. Also contributing to this report were David Alexander, Lydia Araya, Tom Lombardi, Lara Miklozek, and Linda Miller.

Summary: TSA, which screens or oversees the screening of over 650 million air passengers per year, has processes for addressing complaints about air passengers screening experience at checkpoints, but concerns have been raised about these processes. The Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, directed TSA to ensure the traveling public is aware of these processes and GAO to review TSAs policies and procedures for resolving passenger complaints. This report addresses the extent to which TSA has (1) policies and processes to guide the receipt of air passenger screening complaints and use of this information to monitor or enhance screening operations, (2) a consistent process for informing passengers about how to make complaints, and (3) complaint resolution processes that conform to independence standards. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed TSA documentation, analyzed complaint data from October 2009 through June 2012, and interviewed TSA officials from headquarters offices and six airports selected for type of security, among other things. The airport interviews are not generalizable but provide insights. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) receives thousands of air passenger screening complaints through five mechanisms, but does not have an agencywide policy or consistent processes to guide receipt and use of such information. For example, from October 2009 through June 2012, TSA received more than 39,000 screening complaints through its TSA Contact Center (TCC). However, the data from the five mechanisms do not reflect the full nature and extent of complaints because local TSA staff have discretion in implementing TSA's complaint processes, including how they receive and document complaints. For example, comment cards are used at four of the six airports GAO contacted, but TSA does not have a policy requiring that complaints submitted using the cards be tracked or reported centrally. A consistent policy to guide all TSA efforts to receive and document complaints would improve TSA's oversight of these activities and help ensure consistent implementation. TSA also uses TCC data to inform the public about air passenger screening complaints, monitor operational effectiveness of airport security checkpoints, and make changes as needed. However, TSA does not use data from its other four mechanisms, in part because the complaint categories differ, making data consolidation difficult. A process to systematically collect information from all mechanisms, including standard complaint categories, would better enable TSA to improve operations and customer service. TSA has several methods to inform passengers about its complaint processes, but does not have an agencywide policy or mechanism to ensure consistent use of these methods among commercial airports. For example, TSA has developed standard signs, stickers, and customer comment cards that can be used at airport checkpoints to inform passengers about how to submit feedback to TSA; however, GAO found inconsistent use at the six airports it contacted. For example, two airports displayed customer comment cards at the checkpoint, while at two others the cards were provided upon request. Passengers may be reluctant to ask for such cards, however, according to TSA. TSA officials at four of the six airports also said that the agency could do more to share best practices for informing passengers about complaint processes. Policies for informing the public about complaint processes and mechanisms for sharing best practices among local TSA officials could help provide TSA reasonable assurance that these activities are being conducted consistently and help local TSA officials learn from one another about what practices work well. TSA's complaint resolution processes do not fully conform to standards of independence to ensure that these processes are fair, impartial, and credible, but the agency is taking steps to improve independence. Specifically, TSA airport officials responsible for resolving air passenger complaints are generally in the same chain of command as TSA airport staff who are the subjects of the complaints. TSA is developing a new process that could help ensure greater independence by TSA units referring air passenger complaints directly to its Ombudsman Division and by providing passengers an independent avenue to make complaints to that division. TSA also plans to initiate a program by January 2013 in which selected TSA airport staff are to be trained as passenger advocates as a collateral duty. It is too early to assess the extent to which these initiatives will help mitigate possible concerns about independence. GAO recommends that TSA, among other actions, establish (1) a consistent policy for receiving complaints, (2) a process to systematically analyze information on complaints from all mechanisms, and (3) a policy for informing passengers about the screening complaint processes and mechanisms to share best practices among airports. TSA concurred and is taking actions in response.