Airport screeners slam TSA recertification program

As an experienced passenger and baggage screener at Orlando International Airport, Renate Clawson is trained to recognize odd activity. While her attention is usually focused on passengers waiting to board planes, lately her suspicions have turned to an internal matter: the Transportation Security Administration's annual recertification program for airport screeners.

Clawson, along with several screeners at other airports around the country, say the recertification program is mired in so many problems that it should be scrapped.

Through interviews, e-mail exchanges and documents, TSA screeners paint a picture of a testing regime that is based more on subjective criteria than TSA standard operating procedures, leading to confusion and fears that airport safety is being compromised. Most of the screeners contacted by Government Executive asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

Screeners said a high number of workers failed the first time they took the recertification test, but passed the second time because TSA is watering down its testing standards. Screeners who fail testing twice are supposed to be automatically fired.

For example, a screener at New York's LaGuardia International Airport said 62 out of 122 screeners who took the recertification test for the first time by early February failed. On Feb. 4 alone, 24 screeners took the test and 16 failed. A screener at John F. Kennedy International Airport outside New York City said 11 out of 15 screeners he took the test with for the first time failed, including him.

"Basically, the testing is a complete joke," Clawson said. "I think they adjusted the tests because so many people were failing, and they knew that they couldn't lose their screener force."

TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser challenged those claims, asserting that 99.5 percent of all passenger and baggage screeners passed the recertification test either on the first or second try. He said the claim that the testing program uses subjective standards is "untrue" and "defies logic" given that less than 1 percent of screeners are failing.

The Testing Regime

TSA was handed responsibility for training and maintaining a passenger and baggage screening workforce at the nation's 429 commercial airports after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The agency established an annual recertification program to ensure that screeners met all qualifications and standards for their jobs.

As part of the recertification program, screeners are given a knowledge and skills assessment that consists of three phases: knowledge of standard operating procedures, image recognition and a practical demonstration of skills.

TSA administered the first two phases, but hired Lockheed Martin to conduct the third-phase test, which is causing screeners the most problems. Under its contract, Lockheed Martin developed and implemented a testing schedule for phase three, and is conducting and evaluating the practical demonstration tests. The tests evaluate screeners on customer services skills and procedures, such as waving a hand wand over a passenger, checking bags, patting a passenger down and performing an explosive trace detection check.

Lockheed has a deadline of March 31 to complete the certification of all screeners, according to a Lockheed official. He said company testers have completed TSA screener training classes and are qualified to evaluate screeners.

The Lockheed official declined to comment on the national pass and fail rates for screeners or the concerns being raised by screeners.

Testing Problems

Both Lockheed and TSA said screeners are being evaluated based on TSA's objective standard operating procedures.

Screeners, however, said subjective standards permeate their workplace. In some cases, Lockheed Martin testers tell screeners they should perform tasks that do not adhere to standard operating procedures. In other cases, airport supervisors have told screeners to disregard standard procedures on a daily basis, which has created confusion for screeners. And, in still other cases, trainers and testers have different interpretations of the procedures.

"We are getting information from four different sources and none of them match up," said one screener who failed the test the first time he took it.

Screeners rattle off numerous examples of testing discrepancies they say are the result of using subjective criteria.

For example, a screener at LaGuardia said Lockheed personnel told her during testing that she should look inside suspicious bags when X-ray machines or explosive trace detection equipment are not working.

Screeners, however, said that standard operating procedures dictate that they leave suspicious bags untouched and call a supervisor or, if necessary, the police when detection machines are not working.

"You're telling my people to open something up that might be a bomb," said Bob Marchetta, acting president of the New York Metropolitan Airport Workers Association, which was created last year to represent airport screeners. "This behavior is going to kill American people. This is totally horrendous behavior."

A screener at Kennedy airport said he failed the phase-three test, but passed the second time. The second test was watered down, he said, and the Lockheed tester appeared to be more interested in the words he used in communicating with passengers than his actual screening techniques.

"Some people think they did worse on the second test, but they still passed," he said. "If they fired everybody who was failing, they wouldn't have a workforce. They can't do that."

Another screener passed the recertification test on his second try even though he waved an electronic hand wand over a passenger who pretended to have an implanted heart pacer, which is a violation of standard procedures.

"We're not saying that Lockheed Martin was not prepared for this; we're saying that they are ill-prepared to do the testing," Marchetta said. "At this point, we believe Lockheed Martin is just lip-syncing their way through this for the contract money."

Still another screener said she was notified within hours of taking her test that she had failed, even though TSA requirements say all test results must be sent to Washington for certification, which takes 48 hours. In some cases, screeners charge that TSA managers are selectively firing certain workers, such as screeners who have filed discrimination complaints, are involved in union organizing or have a medical condition, such as pregnancy.

And several screeners said they have not received proper training for the recertification tests, which is required by law. The General Accounting Office found in a Feb. 12 report that TSA has taken steps to enhance its training programs for screeners, but problems still remain.

"While TSA has begun developing and fielding recurrent training modules, staffing shortages and a lack of high-speed connectivity at airports have made it difficult for all screeners to access these courses," the report stated.

The Final Straw

Some screeners said they are starting to look for new employment, given past problems they've experienced with the agency as well as recent troubles with the training recertification program.

At a House hearing last week, Cathleen Berrick, director of GAO's homeland security and justice division, said turnover at TSA averages 14 percent annually, but ranges as high as 36 percent at some large airports. She said low pay and bad hours are reasons the agency has been unable to keep part-time workers. She added that recent interviews revealed 11 of the 15 busiest airports do not have enough screeners.

"TSA continues to struggle to maintain an adequate number of screeners at airport checkpoints, and has not yet achieved a stable screener workforce," she said. Berrick added that TSA's hiring process "has hindered the ability of some [federal security directors] to adequately staff passenger and baggage screening checkpoints. Several FSDs we interviewed expressed concern that TSA's hiring process was not responsive to their needs, and wanted to have more input in the hiring process. These FSDs faced screener shortages that hindered their screening capability."

Clawson, who once qualified to be a screening supervisor, said she is seriously considering looking for a new job. She and her co-workers are frustrated, angry and becoming indifferent toward the problems at their airport.

"I will tell you that when I leave here I will not fly again until something is fixed," she said. "I want somebody held accountable for what's going on. The only reason I took this job is because I thought it was going to be different from other government agencies and I thought that we would have a government agency that would be accountable and responsible, and that hasn't happened."