At worst it’s a wash – seriously, no side has even created a cost framework

A precise comparison of the costs of federal airport screeners and a privatized workforce continues to elude the Transportation Security Administration, a top official with the agency said Jan. 14 at a House hearing. Whether or not private screeners would cost less than TSA employees has been a matter of debate surrounding the agency's Screening Partnership Program, which allows airports to switch to private security at screening checkpoints. Kelly Hoggan, TSA's assistant administrator for security operations, told a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that estimating the cost is complex. Factoring in salaries, various benefits, overhead, real estate costs and other expenses has made it difficult for TSA to settle on a formula. Only 14 airports (.pdf) nationwide have a private screening workforce, and many are small airports, including five in Montana, one in Tupelo, Miss., and one in Jackson Hole, Wyo. The San Francisco airport is the largest in the program. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee, said he is contemplating an effort to move the contracting operations for the Screening Partnership Program to the General Services Administration, whose contracting expertise might be useful. Mica is a supporter of privatized airport screening, saying TSA should set standards but not actually hire the screeners or administer them. That is the model used by Canada and many European countries. In the United States, contractors do provide security in high-stakes circumstances, such as at nuclear facilities, he also noted.

Airport and security officials said that privatization led to security lapses. The Charlotte Observer reported in September 2001 (accessed via Nexis) that "privatization, airport officials and security officials say, is where problems begin." The Observer quoted the Charlotte/Douglas airport director as saying: "If you want to do it right, security should be a federal function. ... The airlines bid it out. You know where that leads." From the Observer: At most airports, individual airlines are typically responsible for running security checkpoints and checking bags. In Charlotte, as elsewhere, airlines contract out to for-profit companies, because it's cheaper to pay private firms than to hire unionized security workers. But that privatization, airport officials and security officials say, is where problems begin. "If you want to do it right, security should be a federal function," said Jerry Orr, Charlotte/Douglas airport director. "The airlines bid it out. You know where that leads." "The FAA needs to take it over," said Mickie Elmore, spokesman for the Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro. "There need to be tighter restrictions. The people who run it need to be trained." [...] In a 2000 study, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that frequent turnover in personnel, the repetitive nature of the work and low pay that was often below that offered by fast-food restaurants led to mistakes by security workers. The report recommended, at the very least, that the FAA begin requiring security companies to get certified to qualify for airport jobs. The report also warned that lax security made terrorist attacks likely. The FAA has required screening checkpoints since 1973, and the agency's own figures suggest security efforts have gotten weaker over time: In a 1978 study, screeners missed 13 percent of dangerous items. In 1987, they missed 20 percent. Today, the FAA treats such test results as sensitive material, and for security reasons does not publish results.

LIGHT: Well, not that we know of. But you know, the whole point of TSA is deterrence. You know, if they're doing their jobs, the terrorists isn't showing up. They need to explain to the public what they're doing. All these inconsistencies across the country, they're designed to create uncertainty among terrorists so that they are not really sure what's going to happen to them when they get to the airport. That's a good thing. PHILLIPS: That's interesting. Because that has been the biggest complaint. Look, I fly through Eugene, Oregon, there one way. I fly through (INAUDIBLE) California, they're one way. I fly through New York, La Guardia, they're one way. So you're saying there is a message behind that madness? LIGHT: There is a little bit of message. Well, there is a little bit. Some of it is just, you know, rank and confidence. But some is planned so you can't go to Boston and say, "Oh this is what the screener station is going to look like in San Francisco. You don't want that. You want to keep the terrorists off-balance. So that's the point.

In 2000, nation's largest provider of airport security personnel paid $1.2 million in fines for hiring convicted felons as bag screeners. In April 2000, The New York Times reported that Argenbright Holdings, the corporate parent of Argenbright Security - then the nation's largest provider of airport security personnel, "pleaded guilty to two felonies and agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines and costs" after Argenbright hired 14 people to screen carry-on bags who been convicted of felonies. The Times reported that "[t]hree former managers for the company were also charged with felonies." In addition, "[a]ccording to court documents, two dozen screeners either never took the written test for their jobs or passed the test because the company falsified their results or provided them with the answers." From the Times article: Fourteen people hired in the last few years to search carry-on bags at Philadelphia International Airport had been convicted of felonies including aggravated assault, robbery, theft and firearms violations, the government said today in filing charges against a company that provides security there. Argenbright Holdings Ltd., the corporate parent of Argenbright Security Inc., which is the largest provider of airport security personnel in the country, pleaded guilty to two felonies and agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines and costs. Three former managers for the company were also charged with felonies. According to court documents, two dozen screeners either never took the written test for their jobs or passed the test because the company falsified their results or provided them with the answers. Instead of the required 12-hour training course, Argenbright routinely showed screeners a 45-minute videotape, according to the United States attorney in Philadelphia and the office of the Transportation Department's inspector general. Six security screeners lacked high school diplomas but the managers falsified the records to show they had equivalency degrees.

Ashcroft accused Argenbright of "an astonishing pattern of crimes that could have directly jeopardized public safety." The New York Times (accessed via Nexis) reported on November 9, 2001, that former Attorney General John Ashcroft accused Argenbright of "an astonishing pattern of crimes that could have directly jeopardized public safety": The federal government said a few weeks ago that even after Argenbright agreed to conduct better background checks on its workers, it continued to hire them by the hundreds without adequately examining their pasts. Attorney General John Ashcroft accused the company of committing "an astonishing pattern of crimes that could have directly jeopardized public safety" at 13 of the nation's largest airports where it screens passengers. "Argenbright Holdings continues to violate laws that protect the safety of Americans who travel by commercial airlines," Mr. Ashcroft said. "Our investigation shows Argenbright Holdings has hired predeparture screeners who have disqualifying criminal convictions, including convictions for theft, burglary and illegal drug possession, and that Argenbright Holdings made false statements about its employees' backgrounds."

Yet J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA screeners, claimed in his testimony that SPP screeners "save no taxpayer money. But they are paid less than their federally-employed counterparts and receive inferior benefits." If Cox and AFGE had any evidence to back up those claims, they would have a solid legal case, since the 2001 law mandates that TSA-approved screening companies pay the same screener wages and benefits as TSA. Yet no such lawsuit has ever been filed.

During a rare moment of clarity in the creation of Public Law 107-71 (The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001), which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an often overlooked provision was included … the provision for airports to be allowed choose a private security contract firm, under the guidance of the TSA, called the Screening Partnership Program. Aviation security is a business, and an expensive business, so before we go further, lets address the costs of Screening Partnership Program. The cost of the Screening Partnership Program, for the 2009 fiscal year, was US$151,300,000, out of the TSA’s US$5,042,297,880 budget, or roughly 3% of the annual budget. On average, airports operating under the Screening Partnership Program cost 17.4% more than their TSA run equivalent counterparts, however a streamlined process of eliminating overlapping personnel that are staffed by both the private contractors and the TSA can reduce these costs, bringing the cost to an estimated 14.5% above TSA operated airports.

Terrorists do everything they can to exploit weakness in airline security. Making the last line of defense, low paid, private corporation workers may cost less, but may not be the smartest way for the United States to save money. When it comes to the administration of government programs, the new republican Congress favors releasing as many as they can to private corporations. Private industry security screeners are already preparing a takeover if airport security screening in Orlando, Florida, and if the GOP has their way more airports will follow. Taking airline security from the TSA and turning it over to a sub-contractor who may be more interested in profits than safety is the equivalent of letting a privately run, for-profit company take over the United States military. What a private corporation is likely to do is what they have done in the past; which is to hire people as cheaply as possible, and make them work 10 hour days under the threat of firing them if they don’t like it. How much will an underpaid, over worked employee really care about what someone brings on a plane? And now many will take the job because it’s the only work they can find? Cost cutting by way of relinquishing control of government programs to corporations is not new, nor is the concept of prioritizing the bottom line over all else. The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010, that took the lives of eleven men may be all the evidence one needs to realize that safety comes in second to profits. Putting national security in the hands of a corporation not only increases terrorist threats to America, but also to the world.

The limitations in the design of TSA’s study comparing the cost and performance of SPP and non-SPP airports were due to several key factors related to the study’s purpose and data availability. For example, TSA officials stated that they did not include some cost elements in the study because they wanted to determine the impact of the SPP on TSA’s budget, rather than to determine the impact to the federal government as a whole. In addition, for its comparison of performance, TSA analyzed measures for which information was most complete, among other things. Because of these limitations, we believe that TSA should not use the study as sole support for major policy decisions regarding the SPP.