At TSA headquarters, the Office of Security Operations (OSO) has primary responsibility for operation of the RAP and allocation of TSOs across airports. Within OSO, the Staffing and Scheduling Division oversees the RAP. To allocate staff to the nearly 440 TSA-regulated airports in the United States, OSO is to use a combination of computer- based modeling and line-item adjustments based on airport-specific information. First, the agency is to work with a contractor to evaluate the assumptions—such as rates of expedited screening—used by the computer-based staffing allocation model (model) to determine the optimal number of TSOs at each airport based on airport size and configuration, flight schedules, and the time it takes to perform checkpoint and baggage screening tasks. Second, after the model has determined how many TSOs are required for each airport, headquarters-level staff are to make line item adjustments to account for factors such as differences in staff availability and training needs that affect each airport. Figure 1 below provides additional details regarding TSA’s process to determine the number of TSOs at airports. As previously discussed, in 2007, we recommended that TSA establish a mechanism to periodically assess the assumptions in the RAP (prior to fiscal year 2017, known as the Staffing Allocation Model) to ensure that staffing allocations accurately reflect operating conditions that may change over time. TSA implemented this recommendation by developing an evaluation plan for regularly assessing the assumptions used in the staffing model. Assumptions include the number of passengers or bags that can be screened each hour by TSA equipment and the time TSOs require to operate discrete sections of the screening process, such as conducting pat-downs or searches of passengers’ carry-on baggage. The evaluation plan states that TSA is to assess (1) the time it takes to screen passengers using TSA equipment and (2) the number of staff needed to operate the equipment. Results from these assessments are to inform the assumptions used in the model to determine the base allocation of TSOs to U.S. airports. TSA uses the evaluation plan as well as airport-level characteristics to systematically evaluate the assumptions used in the model on a regular basis: Evaluation plan: TSA’s evaluation plan recommends evaluating the time it takes to perform 19 aspects of passenger and checked baggage screening processes at least every two years and includes detailed procedures for doing so. For instance, the evaluation of passenger screening processes involves observing operations at selected airports to determine the average time it takes for one passenger to remove items of clothing and prepare his or her belongings for screening. Similarly, the evaluation determines how many passengers can be processed each hour during selected aspects of screening, such as by travel document checkers or via advanced imaging technology (AIT), often referred to as body scanners. Individual airport characteristics: Each year, TSA airport-level staff, such as FSDs or their designees, are to review the information in the model to ensure that information on the number of checkpoints and each checkpoint configuration and the number of flights departing the airport each day is accurate. At the airport level, FSDs and their designees are responsible for overseeing TSA security activities, including passenger and checked baggage screening. TSOs at airports follow standard operating procedures that guide screening processes and utilize technology such as AITs or walk through metal detectors (WTMD) to screen passengers and their accessible property. TSOs also inspect checked baggage to deter, detect, and prevent the carriage of any unauthorized explosive, incendiary, or weapon onboard an aircraft. Checked baggage screening is conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures and generally is accomplished through the use of explosives detection systems or explosives trace detection systems. TSA employs an expedited screening program, known as TSA Pre® that assesses passenger risk to aviation security prior to their arrival at an airport checkpoint. According to TSA, expedited screening involves a relatively more efficient and convenient screening process for individuals from whom TSA has obtained sufficient information to determine them to be of lower risk and thus undergo an expedited screening process, compared to the standard screening process a traveler may undergo, for whom TSA does not have such information in advance. Finally, at each airport, TSA is to collect throughput data on the number of passengers screened under both expedited and standard screening and monitor passenger wait times at screening checkpoints. TSA airport officials are to submit passenger throughput and wait time data on a daily basis to OSO’s Performance Management Division at TSA headquarters, which compiles the data through the Performance Measurement Information System (PMIS), TSA’s web-based data collection system. TSA’s OSO and the Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement (OSPIE) are both responsible for sharing information with stakeholders about airport operations. In response to the Aviation Security Act, OSO issued guidance in October 2016 intended to ensure that FSDs share information with stakeholders. OSPIE communicates TSA information about airport operations, such as how TSOs are allocated across airports, to stakeholders. In fiscal years 2016 and 2017, TSA modified the assumptions used in its model, as needed, to reflect changes identified through annual evaluations performed by a contractor. The contractor is specifically tasked with evaluating the assumptions related to the time needed to screen passengers and their baggage. For example, TSA officials stated that they increased the expected time needed to screen passengers for one type of passenger screening equipment in fiscal year 2017 because the contractor found that the actual time needed was more than the assumption TSA used in fiscal year 2016. Similarly, in fiscal year 2016, TSA allocated fewer staff to review images of checked baggage, compared to previous years, because the contractor’s evaluation determined it took TSOs less time to review the images than the time observed in previous years. In addition to modifying its model based on evaluations performed by contractors, TSA officials at the headquarters level review and modify other assumptions in the model to ensure they are accurate. For example, prompted by the long waits in the spring of 2016, officials stated that they modified the model for the 2017 fiscal year based on their evaluation of the 2016 assumptions. Specifically, TSA assumed that 50 percent of airline passengers would use expedited screening in 2016, but only an average of 27 percent of passengers used expedited screening that year. According to the officials, TSA modified this assumption in fiscal year 2017 and now uses TSA Pre® Program data specific to each individual airport in the model. Similarly, officials told us that, since TSA was established in November 2001, many employees will reach 15 years of service with the federal government in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, resulting in increased annual leave allowances. In response, officials have increased the amount of annual leave they expect employees to use and rely on airport-specific data regarding employee tenure to estimate annual leave for the coming year. TSA has also modified the way it develops assumptions regarding passenger throughput at each airport. For example, beginning in fiscal year 2016, TSA used passenger throughput forecasts to allocate staff commensurate with the expected rate of increase in passenger throughput at each airport. The estimated increase in passenger throughput for each fiscal year is based primarily on national and airport- level data from the previous 3 months from PMIS, TSA’s web-based data collection system, and flight forecast data from the airline industry, as well as additional input from other sources. Prior to fiscal year 2016, TSA planned for passenger throughput during the busiest 28 days from the previous fiscal year and did not adjust the assumption for the annual increase in passenger throughput, which increased two percent in 2014 and four percent in 2015. A TSA headquarters official responsible for overseeing the RAP stated that the agency compared projected passenger throughput to actual passenger throughput for fiscal year 2017 to determine the accuracy of the projections and concluded that no significant changes to the method of forecasting were necessary for fiscal year 2018. According to TSA officials, each airport in the United States has unique characteristics that make it difficult to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to staffing security operations. For instance, officials told us that some airports are allocated additional staff to account for the time needed to transport TSOs to off-site training facilities. Because the staffing allocation resulting from TSA’s model does not reflect the full range of operating conditions at individual airports, TSA headquarters officials use airport-specific information to further adjust allocations by changing individual line items within the allocation after running the model on both an annual and an ad hoc basis. TSA headquarters officials stated that they have developed methodologies for making standard line item adjustments such as training requirements, overtime, and annual and sick leave. Officials told us they review the methodologies each year and use their professional judgement to modify the methodologies to account for changes in airport needs as well as budget constraints. We found that through its process of tailoring staffing allocations to individual airports’ needs, TSA is able to respond to the circumstances at each individual airport. TSA headquarters officials also use airport-specific data on staff availability, training needs, supervisory needs, and additional security layers to manually adjust the model’s staffing allocation output at a line item level. For instance, headquarters officials use the previous years’ data on staff sick leave for each airport to evaluate whether they are allocating the appropriate amount of sick leave to their staff allocations on an individual airport basis. According to TSA headquarters officials, sick leave use can vary by airport and region of the country. Similarly, officials stated that they adjust the model’s output to account for individual airport staff’s training needs so that each airport’s staff can meet TSA’s annual training requirements. In addition, according to TSA officials at both the headquarters and airport levels, airport-level officials can request exceptions—modifications to their staffing allocation—based on unusual airport conditions that are difficult to address, such as problematic checkpoint configurations or lack of space for security operations. For instance, officials at one airport said that they had been granted exceptions for one checkpoint because pillars and curves within the checkpoint prevented the lanes in the checkpoint from screening passengers at the rate assumed by the model. TSA officials at the headquarters level review requests for exceptions and use their professional judgement to determine whether the exception will be granted. Finally, in some cases, TSA may adjust an airport’s staffing allocation outside of the annual staffing allocation process and may do so as the result of significant and unforeseen changes in airport operations. For instance, TSA officials stated that one airport was allocated additional staff for the remainder of the fiscal year when the airport opened a new terminal mid-year so that the additional checkpoints could be properly staffed. Officials at another airport we visited said that they had been allocated additional staff when an airline extended its operational hours to ensure appropriate staffing for the additional hours of operation. TSA collects passenger wait time and throughput data and uses those data to monitor daily operations at airports. TSA’s Operations Directive (directive), Reporting Customer Throughput and Wait Times, provides instructions for collecting and reporting wait time and passenger throughput data for TSA screening lanes. Regarding wait time data, according to the directive, FSDs or their designees at all Category X, I, and II airports must measure wait times every operational hour in all TSA expedited and standard screening lanes. The directive requires wait times to be measured in actual time, using a verifiable system such as wait time cards, closed circuit television monitoring, or another confirmable method. The directive indicates that wait times should be measured from the end of the line in which passengers are waiting to the WTMD or AIT units. FSDs or their designees at Category III and IV airports may estimate wait times initially, but the directive requires them to measure actual wait times when wait times are estimated at 10 minutes or greater. The directive also requires FSDs or their designees to collect passenger throughput data directly from the WTMD and AIT units. According to TSA headquarters officials, the machines have sensors that collect the number of passengers that pass through each hour, and TSOs retrieve the data directly from the units. All airports regardless of category are required to enter their wait time and throughput data daily into PMIS, TSA’s web-based data entry program, no later than 3:30 AM Eastern Time of the next calendar day so that the data can be included in the morning’s Daily Leadership Report (discussed in more detail below). To monitor operations for all airports, TSA compiles a daily report utilizing a variety of PMIS data points, including wait time and throughput data. The Office of Security Operations’ Performance Management Division disseminates the Daily Leadership Report to TSA officials, including regional directors and FSDs and their designees every morning detailing the previous day’s wait times and throughput figures, among other data points. The Performance Management Division includes a quality assurance addendum with each Daily Leadership Report, indicating missing or incorrect data, to include wait time and throughput data, and TSA has procedures in place intended to ensure officials at the airports correct the data in PMIS within 2 weeks. In addition to the Daily Leadership Report, TSA utilizes wait time and throughput data to monitor airport operations at 28 airports in near real time. In May 2016, TSA established the Airport Operations Center (AOC) that conducts near real time monitoring of the operations of 28 airports that, according to TSA headquarters officials, represent the majority of passenger throughput nationwide or are operationally significant. TSA requires the 28 airports monitored by the AOC to enter passenger wait time data and throughput data into PMIS hourly (whereas the remaining airports are only required to submit data once daily, by 3:30 AM Eastern Time, as described above) so that AOC officials can monitor the operations in near real time. In addition, TSA officials at airports are required to report to the AOC when an event occurs—such as equipment malfunctions, weather-related events, or unusually high passenger throughput—that affects airport screening operations and results in wait times that are greater than TSA’s standards of 30 minutes in standard screening lanes or greater than 15 minutes in expedited screening lanes. If an airport is undergoing a period of prolonged wait times, the AOC coordinates with the Regional Director and the FSD to assist in deploying resources. For example, over the course of the summer of 2016, after certain airports experienced long wait times in the spring of 2016 as confirmed by our analysis, the AOC assisted in deploying additional passenger screening canines and TSOs to those airports that experienced longer wait times. The AOC disseminates a morning and evening situational report to TSA airport-level officials and airport stakeholders summarizing nationwide wait times, highlighting wait times at the top airports and any hot spots (unexpected passenger volume or other operational challenges) that may have occurred since the most recent report was issued. In addition to the near real time monitoring of the 28 airports, the AOC also monitors operations at all other airports and disseminates information to airports and stakeholders as needed. To determine the extent to which TSA exceeded its wait time standards, we analyzed wait time data for the 28 airports monitored by the AOC for the period of January 2015 through May 2017 for both standard and expedited screening. Our analysis shows that TSA met its wait time standard of less than 30 minutes in standard screening at the 28 AOC airports 99.3 percent of the time for the period of January 2015 through May 2017. For expedited screening for the same time period at the same airports, we found that 100 percent of the time passengers were reported to have waited 19 minutes or less. Additionally, our analysis confirmed that the percentage of passengers in standard screening waiting over 30 minutes increased in 2016 during the months of March, April, and May as compared to 2015 at all 28 airports monitored by the AOC. FSDs and their staff at the airports we visited identified a variety of tools that they utilize to respond to increases in passenger wait times and/or throughput. TSOs from the National Deployment Force (NDF)—teams of additional TSOs—are available for deployment to airports to support screening operations during major events and seasonal increases in passengers. For example, TSA officials at one airport we visited received NDF officers during busy holiday seasons and officials at another airport received officers during the increase in wait times in the spring and summer of 2016. TSA officials at select airports use passenger screening canines to expedite the screening process and support screening operations during increased passenger throughput and wait time periods. For example, TSA officials at one airport we visited emphasized the importance of passenger screening canines as a useful tool to minimize wait times and meet passenger screening demands at times when throughput is high. Officials at another airport we visited rely on these canines in busy terminals during peak periods. According to officials at two of the airports we visited, the use of passenger screening canines helped them to reduce wait times due to increased passenger volumes in the spring and summer of 2016. TSA officials at airports also utilize part-time TSOs and overtime hours to accommodate increases in passenger throughput and wait times. For example, according to officials at all eight of the airports we visited, they use overtime during peak travel times, such as during holiday travel seasons, and officials usually plan the use of overtime in advance. Additionally, TSA officials at four of the airports we visited told us they use part-time TSOs to help manage peak throughput times throughout the day. According to TSA officials at two of the airports we visited, they move TSOs between checkpoints to accommodate increases in passenger throughput at certain checkpoints and to expedite screening operations. For example, TSA officials at one airport we visited have a team of TSOs that terminal managers can request on short notice. Officials at the other airport estimated that they move TSOs between terminals about 40 times per day. TSA headquarters has taken steps intended to improve information sharing with stakeholders about staffing and related screening procedures at airports. For example, TSA officials hold daily conference calls with industry association, airline, and airport officials at the 28 airports monitored by the AOC. According to TSA headquarters officials, TSA established the daily conference call as a mechanism intended to ensure timely communication with stakeholders and to help identify and address challenges in airport operations such as increases in passenger wait times. Also, TSA headquarters officials stated that they conducted a series of presentations and meetings with industry, airline, and airport officials to discuss TSA’s RAP, security enhancements at airports, and airport screening processes, among other things. For example, TSA’s headquarters officials shared information about the fiscal year 2017 RAP in October 2016 during a briefing at an industry conference and a meeting with airline representatives, airline engineers, and Federal Aviation Administration officials. Additionally, TSA headquarters officials facilitated a stakeholder meeting in May 2017 to discuss planned improvements for the TSA Pre® Program and met with stakeholders in June 2017 to discuss security enhancements and changes to screening procedures for carry-on baggage. In addition to headquarters-level initiatives, at the eight airports we visited, we found that FSDs shared information with airport and airline officials by meeting on an ongoing basis to discuss TSA staffing and related screening procedures. For example, according to the FSDs and airline and airport officials at all eight airports we visited, FSDs met with stakeholders on a daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis. During these meetings, FSDs and airline and airport officials told us that FSDs discussed TSO staffing levels at the airports, instances when passenger screening wait times were long at security checkpoints, and TSA screening equipment performance, among other things. Stakeholders told us that TSA headquarters officials and most FSDs improved information sharing since fiscal year 2016. With regard to TSA headquarters officials’ information sharing efforts, officials from all three industry associations we interviewed stated that, since fiscal year 2016, TSA headquarters improved information sharing with their association member companies and attributed that improvement, in part, to the daily conference call between TSA and stakeholders. For example, officials from one industry association stated that the calls benefited members by facilitating collaboration with TSA to more quickly identify and address problems, such as malfunctioning screening equipment, before the problems negatively affected passengers. An official from another industry association told us that the daily conference call improved communication substantially between TSA and the organization by providing a regular opportunity to discuss airport security issues and TSA’s plans to resolve those issues. Additionally, stakeholders we interviewed generally reported positive relationships or improved information sharing with FSDs, but also noted differences in the type and extent of information that FSDs shared. For example, officials at seven of eight airlines and all eight airports we visited stated that they have positive relationships with their FSDs and that their FSDs were accessible and available when needed, while the remaining airline official noted improving access to information. Furthermore, officials from all three industry associations cited improved information sharing between their members at airports and FSDs since fiscal year 2016, but officials from two association noted that some FSDs still do not regularly share information, such as changes in the number of TSOs staffed at individual airports. According to TSA headquarters officials, stakeholders can elevate any problems they experience with FSDs sharing information to regional directors who are responsible for ensuring that FSDs engage regularly with stakeholders. We provided a draft of this product to DHS for comment. We received technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of TSA and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix I. In addition to the contact named above, Ellen Wolfe, Assistant Director; Joel Aldape, David Alexander, Chuck Bausell, David Beardwood, Wendy Dye, Miriam Hill, Susan Hsu, Thomas Lombardi, Kevin Newak, Heidi Nielson, and Natalie Swabb made significant contributions to this report.

Summary: TSA employs about 43,000 TSOs who screen over 2 million passengers and their baggage each day at airports in the United States. TSA allocates TSOs to airports using both a computer-based staffing model and information from airports that are intended to provide each airport with the optimum number of TSOs. In the spring of 2016, long screening checkpoint lines at certain U.S. airports raised questions about TSA's process for allocating TSOs to airports. The Aviation Security Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to review TSA's process for allocating TSOs. This report examines how (1) TSA modifies staffing assumptions and tailors staffing levels to airports' needs, (2) TSA monitors wait times and throughput and adjusts resources accordingly, and (3) TSA shares information with stakeholders about staffing and related screening procedures at airports. GAO reviewed TSA documentation describing how the agency modifies staffing assumptions and manages stakeholder coordination. GAO also analyzed passenger wait time and throughput data from January 2015 through May 2017 for the 28 airports monitored by headquarters. GAO visited eight airports selected on the basis of passenger volume and other factors and interviewed TSA officials and stakeholders at those locations. GAO is not making any recommendations. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) modifies staffing assumptions used in its computer-based staffing model (model) and tailors staffing levels to individual airport needs. Specifically, TSA works with a contractor annually to evaluate the assumptions used in the model and modifies the model's assumptions as needed. For example, TSA adjusted its model after contractor evaluations conducted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 found that transportation security officers (TSO) needed more time to screen passengers and their baggage when using one type of screening equipment. Moreover, in 2016, TSA began using forecasts on the number of passengers screened at each airport's checkpoints (throughput) to better allocate staff commensurate with the expected rate of increase in passenger throughput at each airport. Furthermore, prompted by the long wait times at some airports in 2016, for the 2017 model TSA officials used actual expedited screening data, specific to each individual airport, rather than relying on the system-wide estimate used in 2016. TSA officials also use other information specific to each airport—such as staff training needs—to further tailor the TSO allocation because the initial allocation resulting from the model does not reflect the full range of operating conditions at individual airports. TSA uses data to monitor passenger wait times and throughput on a daily basis and responds to increases. For example, TSA's Airport Operations Center (AOC) monitors daily wait times and passenger throughput from 28 airports that TSA officials say represent the majority of passenger throughput nationwide or are operationally significant. Furthermore, TSA officials at airports are required to report to the AOC when an event occurs—such as equipment malfunctions—that affects airport screening operations and results in wait times that are greater than 30 minutes in standard screening lanes. GAO analyzed wait time data for the AOC-monitored airports for the period of January 2015 through May 2017 and found that TSA's reported wait times met its standard of less than 30 minutes in standard screening 99 percent of the time. Within that time frame, two airports accounted for the longest wait times in the spring of 2016. TSA officials identified several tools, such as passenger screening canines, that they use to respond to increases in passenger wait times at these airports. TSA has taken steps to improve information sharing with airline and airport officials (stakeholders) about staffing and related airport screening operations, and most stakeholders GAO interviewed reported improved satisfaction with information sharing. However, some stakeholders noted differences in the type and extent of information shared. According to TSA officials, stakeholders can elevate any problems they experience with information sharing within TSA to ensure information is shared regularly with stakeholders.