When It Comes to Security Preparedness, the TSA Needs Improvements From Congress

Angelica Hickerson /

As we approach the holiday season, one thing that many Americans will have in common is travel. In light of recent high-profile mistakes, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to make some serious changes to security methodology.

The TSA has already taken some steps to better manage risks at airports. It cut back on the “managed inclusion” program that allowed individuals to enter the TSA PreCheck lines without being fully vetted. Despite congressional concern, however, they have still yet to completely cancel the program.

Beyond such measures, however, Congress should make significant reforms to the TSA.

One area in which the TSA can improve its protection of passengers is by strengthening their last line of defense—Federal Air Marshalls (FAMs) and Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs). As famously portrayed by Liam Neeson in Non-Stop, FAMs are agents who fly aboard aircrafts and serve as an additional layer of security. FFDOs, while more cost-effective, are not nearly as well-known as FAMs. Pilots and navigators voluntarily join this program and are trained by the Department of Homeland Security to use firearms on planes. While shooting a gun inside a plane does not result in the James Bond effect, the presence of individuals who can handle firearms will certainly provide an extra layer of security on flights.

The Screening Partnership Program (SPP) is another program that the TSA should look to expand and improve. The SPP allows airports to replace TSA screeners with privately owned, TSA-approved companies who bring a more flexible and cost-effective screening service to the table. A new Government Accountability Office report reviewed the SPP and found that “[w]hile multiple congressional committees have sought improved information on the cost effectiveness of the SPP to oversee the program, TSA has not reported cost comparisons between federal and private screening at SPP airports to policy makers.”

In 2011, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee noted in a case study that the SPP was as much as 65 percent more efficient than the federal screening process, either due to the higher level of attrition in the TSA or the higher level of staffing required. Other benefits to the program include customer service improvements, as reported by current airports in the program, as well as the fact that if the private contractor fails to provide adequate security, the airport can easily fire that company.

There are three concrete steps that should be taken regarding the SPP to increase security and encourage more cost-effective screening:

  1. The TSA should provide Congress with a cost comparison list between TSA screeners and SPP screeners;
  2. The SPP application process for airports should be streamlined to make it easier to apply; and
  3. Airports should also be allowed to select and manage their own screening contractors from a list of TSA-approved companies.

While no system is perfect, Congress should work to improve the TSA by expanding these programs, thus making Americans safer when they travel.

No related posts.