70% Detection Failure Rate Being Reported is Based on Testing from 2004-2005

In the last week or so, several media outlets have referenced a “recent” report which cites a 70 percent failure rate for TSA to detect guns and knives passing through airport checkpoints. Some stories acknowledge the outdated covert testing report while not acknowledging the steps that have been taken since then to improve security. All are misleading.

It's important to note that while the report was issued in 2006 and appeared in the media in 2007, the tests it references were actually carried out in 2004-2005.

Let me point out a few things that aren't getting reported:

New Security Measures: Since 2004-2005, TSA has implemented new security measures and deployed enhanced technology, which reflect TSA's evolving approach to aviation security. Among TSA's many layers of security, both seen and unseen, these include the following:

• Advanced technology X-ray systems, used to screen carry-on baggage, which feature multiple views of the item and enhanced detection capability. Currently, there are more than 940 AT X-ray units deployed to airports nationwide.
• Advanced imaging technology, which safely screen passengers for both metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons and explosives. There are nearly 500 units deployed to airports, and the use of the technology has led to the detection of more than 130 dangerous or illegal items in the last year.
• Enhanced pat-downs, which were deployed to greatly increase TSA's detection capabilities for threats such as those seen last year on Christmas Day.

Limited Scope: Not only is the report nearly 5 years old, but the limited testing was conducted at only three out of 450 federalized U.S. airports.

Covert Testing Increases Security: TSA conducts covert testing in order to continually challenge our workforce and raise the bar to create stronger layers of security. As Administrator Pistole pointed out while testifying on the Hill recently, the results of covert tests informed TSA's decision to implement enhanced measures, such as new pat down procedures and the widespread deployment of advanced imaging technology.

Bottom line, TSA will continue to use every tool at our disposal - including new security measures based on the latest intelligence and covert testing results to keep the traveling public safe. Security is not static, but constantly evolves to meet the terrorist threats of tomorrow.

Blogger Bob

TSA Blog Team

Covert Testing Results Critical to Security

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on TSA’s covert testing program. We’ve written about the report and posted it on our website. Some media and blogs have covered the report and created some misperceptions along the way –headlines like: “TSA Doesn’t Look Into Airport Security Screener Failures don’t help. So we wanted to talk a bit about the covert testing process at TSA.

TSA undergoes covert testing by three entities: The GAO, the DHS Inspector General and TSA’s own Office of Inspection. The recent GAO report focused on TSA’s covert testing procedures. During the course of the year long GAO review, the auditors examined all TSA covert test reports and recommendations, and had access to new policy or Standard Operating Procedure changes derived from the covert test recommendations. Many of the changes are in place today to further enhance the safety and security of the traveling public.

The report validated TSA’s covert testing program and included some recommendations. The recommendation that is causing confusion deals with the way TSA records test failures.

GAO recommended that TSA include a line item in our database for "failures." One would assume “failure” means someone missed an IED, but in fact the failure could be in how a rule is applied, how a technology functions in a specific airport, or how a procedure requires follow-up on an alarm. Because of the vast amount of qualitative information recorded by testers, they write more detailed explanations of failures in a written report instead of a line item in a database. We did, however, concur with the GAO recommendation and have now added a category to the data base on failures in addition to the more detailed reports we’ll continue to do.

The specific misperception we wanted to clear up is what we do with the test results. In some of the blog coverage I’ve seen, including the link mentioned above, some think we don’t do anything with the test results, which is far from the truth. These results are critical to closing security gaps in individual airports and throughout the entire aviation system. As soon as a covert test is completed in an airport, the findings are shared with the TSA leadership there, noting areas for improvement, whether it be in the application of Standard Operating Procedures, use of technology or other areas. The testers also meet with Transportation Security Officers after the testing is completed to show them where mistakes were made and offer suggestions to immediately close any security gap.

After the airport staff is briefed, the testers conduct a briefing to TSA senior staff to show them the failures and recommendations. Information is shared with the Office of Security Operations, which oversees TSA operations at airports nationwide. This gives headquarters an opportunity to look at results at one airport to see if there are implications for the whole aviation network. As needed, Standard Operating Procedures and training could be changed, technology is tweaked, and processes can be changed at the national level based on covert tests.

Bottom line: we take these results – and the results of GAO and the DHS Inspector General - very seriously and TSA constantly uses them to improve security.

Lynn,

EoS Blog Team

Rumor Alert: Conflict of Interest at TSA?

Blogger and pundit Annie Jacobsen published a piece titled, "Top TSA Officials in Cheating Scandal Also Ran Private Consulting Firm" on Saturday, March 15. This piece has been linked to from several blogs and other sites in the past day.

Below is a topic by topic comparison of suppositions and the truth. At the end of this post is an e-mail I personally sent to Jacobsen on Thursday, March 13th, three full days before the piece appeared, clearly answering her questions and explaining the rules concerning outside employment. Full e-mail addresses have been omitted.

Myth:
"...the TSA was caught encouraging colleagues to cheat on covert bomb detection tests being performed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)."

Fact:
Anyone remotely familiar with post 9/11 security knows that the FAA does not conduct covert security tests anymore and hasn't for several years. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, Government Accountability Office and TSA Office of Inspection do. The message in question was an attempt to notify federal security directors of the possibility of someone masquerading as a Department of Transportation official and was recalled 13 minutes after being sent. The individual that sent the e-mail was not familiar with covert testing at all.


Myth:
"Consulting in the private sector simultaneously is in direct conflict with federal policy and specifically prohibited by two statutes of Department of Homeland Security employment contracts..."

Fact:
As was written (see e-mail below) to Jacobsen three days before the article appeared, government ethics rules do not prohibit Federal employees from owning or operating a private business as long as it does not create any conflicts of interest for them. In other words, employees cannot participate in any government matter that could affect the financial interests of their own business. The law that restricts this type of conflict of interest is 18 USC § 208. TSA is not aware of any government matter that would affect the financial interests of the consulting company McGowan and Restovich operated.

Jacobsen also referenced a regulation titled, ADM 3700. After checking with our attorneys, that regulation pertains only to federal air marshal personnel, not regular TSA employees. This was also clearly communicated to Jacobsen in the e-mail below.

Additionally, looking at the very document she references in the piece, it clearly states, "TSA employees may not engage in outside employment or an outside activity that conflicts with their official duties..." TSA has looked into this activity and is not aware of any government matter that would affect the financial interests of Group 2M. (as is written in the e-mail below).

Myth:
"Morris "Mo" McGowan took Restovich's place as security operations chief after the cheating scandal broke."

Fact:
While chronologically correct, these events are completely unrelated. Mr. Restovich left the top post in security operations to become a senior field executive.

Myth:
"Restovich did not show up and was instead dispatched overseas. TSA would neither confirm nor deny if in his new role as DHS attaché, Mike Restovich is a government employee receiving a salary and benefits, or if he is a paid consultant."

Fact:
Mr. Restovich was never "dispatched" overseas. He was selected to fill the position of DHS attaché to the United Kingdom. This was in no way related to any scheduled hearing.

During conversations and e-mail correspondences with the reporter, the question, "is Mr. Restovich a government employee receiving salary and benefits?" was never asked. If it had been asked, we certainly would have provided this information. As the e-mail below shows, we did answer all questions pertaining to Mr. Restovich's assignment in England and his predecessor in the position.

Myth:
"TSA's Office of Public Affairs declined to provide further information on Mike Restovich, Morris "Mo" McGowan, or the security consulting company the two men formed while working as TSA officials."

Fact:
As the e-mail below clearly shows, all the questions asked were answered in a very clear, straight-forward manner.

----- Original Message -----
From: White, Christopher
To: 'annie jacobsen' anniejacobsen@.com
Sent: Thu Mar 13 17:39:56 2008Subject:

RE: Two Questions

Annie, Below are answers to your questions. Also, going forward, you will be given the same access to information as other private citizens via our Freedom of Information Act office. They may be contacted at: foia@dhs.gov.

1) Did anyone hold the position, "DHS Attaché to the United Kingdom" before Mike Restovich? And if so, who.

Yes, David Tiedge

2) Do you have any updates you would like to share with the public regarding the Congressional investigation into the matter involving Mike Restovich last fall?

Congress would be a more appropriate source for updates on a congressional investigation. Suggest you contact the relevant committee.

Group 2M:

Government ethics rules do not prohibit Federal employees from owning or operating a private business as long as it does not create any conflicts of interest for them. In other words, employees at the Transportation Senior Executive Service (TSES) level and below cannot participate in any government matter that could affect the financial interests of their own business. The law that restricts this type of conflict of interest is 18 USC § 208. TSA is not aware of any government matter that would affect the financial interests of Group 2M. In response to your question regarding ADM 3700, that policy refers to Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) personnel only and neither Mr. McGowan nor Mr. Restovich are FAMS personnel.

Christopher