TSA To Allow Private Airport Screening Cos.

The Transportation Security Administration next week once again will allow airports to employ private screening companies, even though the Department of Homeland Security in the past two months has made public several reports describing training and performance inconsistencies among airport screeners. Travel managers who have noted unevenness among screeners fear the move makes way for an even more erratic airport security screening process.

"As of Nov. 19, airports can apply to TSA to opt out if they express interest in returning to private screeners," a TSA spokesperson said. "They would need to apply to TSA to do so, because any private contractor would have to meet TSA standards and TSA would manage the contracts."

Since Nov. 19, 2002, airports in San Francisco, Kansas City, Mo., Rochester, N.Y., Jackson Hole, Wyo., and Tupelo, Miss., have been piloting security screening with four contractors. While the pilot was to ensure private screeners "operate at a level at least equal to screeners at federalized airports," a recent report released by the DHS Inspector General's Office showed inconclusive results in the effectiveness of private screeners versus their federal counterparts.

The report concludes the private contractors "interpreted program guidelines differently or received different guidance from TSA on similar issues, leading to inconsistencies in operations among the pilot program contractors and making comparisons among them difficult." It said TSA did not develop "adequate performance standards or criteria to monitor, measure, and evaluate pilot program contractors' performance, to compare private screeners' performance with federalized screeners' performance."

"We have concerns about the inconsistencies," said Carol Devine, National Business Travel Association president and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad director of strategic sourcing, echoing the sentiment of many travelers and travel managers. "Now, with those five airports that are privatized, it will probably develop additional inconsistencies. It is an issue."

TSA would try to limit inconsistencies and would retain oversight of all screeners. "While the screener might be employed by a private entity," a spokesperson said, "TSA would still have management oversight and the screeners would still need to be trained to TSA standards."

However, in recent reports, DHS described problems among airport screeners and TSA. One report, released in September, discussed results of undercover security checkpoint tests conducted between July and November of last year. While only a portion of the report was released to the public, DHS Office of the Inspector General concluded, "improvements are needed in the screening process to ensure that dangerous prohibited items are not being carried into sterile areas of heavily used airports or do not enter the checked baggage system." The report outlined four broad areas that "caused the most test failures:" training, equipment and technology, policy and procedures, and management and supervision. "These four areas should not be viewed in isolation, however, as certain of their aspects often overlap one another," the document said.

The report offered few specific scenarios of compromised security instances and gave little indication to the breadth and scope of the problems. DHS assured that, since the report was released internally last year, TSA has made "significant improvements."

However, training and testing problems continue within TSA and among its screeners, according to another report released last month. The report looked both at training methods for passenger screeners and checked baggage screeners, noting less-than-competent classroom and on-the-job training for both groups.

Of the 14 criteria by which the DHS judged passenger screening training, only three were met, said the report. The results were even worse for checked-baggage screeners, with only one training criterion consistently met.

DHS said curriculum materials were accurate for the training of baggage screeners and passenger screeners. Yet, the DHS report concluded screeners were not properly trained or tested, sufficient training materials and equipment were unavailable, and testing problems were rampant.

Some airport screeners were trained on different equipment than they use at airports and "neither passenger nor checked-baggage screeners received instruction, practice or testing for some skills necessary to their functions, such as safety skills to handle deadly or dangerous weapons or objects."

Through 22 recommendations in the report, DHS asked TSA to revise testing and modify teaching methods. DHS asserted that training programs have improved since deployment two years ago through "multiple revisions and amendments," the report said. "These revisions, however, were not supported by a systematic or comprehensive instructional systems design process and, as a result, were incomplete."

While DHS highlighted internal deficiencies that have stymied consistencies in airport security, travel managers and travelers have noted ongoing problems with screening processes.

NBTA in March released a survey of 150 travel managers, 70 percent of whom said there were "inconsistencies" in security procedures at major airports. Half reported they are concerned about "inefficiencies at security checkpoints and 'observable gaps' in aviation security," NBTA said.

The trend seems to be ongoing, according to San Diego-based consulting firm Innovation Analysis Group. Since late March, IAG has tracked travelers' responses to security screeners on a trip-by-trip basis. The ongoing, online-based survey, which is updated on a regular basis, so far represents more than 1,000 travelers, pointing toward screening inconsistencies among U.S.-based airports and a decline in politeness and professionalism among screeners.

During the first wave of results released this spring, 74 percent of the respondents said screeners were "professional," yet that number in the latest tally from September shows a 5 percent decrease. Opinions on politeness, likewise, have dropped by 4 percent in that same time period. Meanwhile, travelers continue to be confounded by screening policies. The latest results show 35 percent of travelers said such objects as articles of clothing or computers were asked to be removed at one airport but not another—an improvement over the 41 percent of travelers who noted the same problem in the first wave of results.

"People are pretty much stunned into taking off their shoes, getting out the laptop," said Kevin Iwamoto, Hewlett-Packard global air and car supplier manager. "The problem is some airports are more consistent than others. It's still a matter of lack of consistency: do you keep your ID out or do you put it away once you get into a secure area; do you take off your shoes, do you leave them on; do you take off your belt buckle, do you leave it on? I know there are some TSA employees who are thoroughly confused. They don't know the standard either. It comes down to training and making sure that current and new employees get recurring training."