Implementing these programs is a shared responsibility among multiple  TSA offices, including the OIA Program Management Division which  manages the programs, and the Adjudication Center within OLE/FAMS,  which serves as the primary operational component for conducting  security threat assessments for 12 of TSA’s 17 aviation, maritime, and  surface transportation credentialing programs—with the TWIC, HME and  Aviation Worker programs accounting for a reported 95 percent of the  Adjudication Center’s workload. Adjudication Center Performance Data Show Mixed Results, Accuracy Measures Are Limited, and Performance Measurement Practices Are Not Fully Documented

TSA has evaluated the Adjudication Center largely based on contractor  performance in meeting established metrics and data shows mixed  performance since 2011; however the Adjudication Center’s performance  measures and practices are limited. We found that the Adjudication  Center contractor met two of its three performance measures—for  timeliness and accuracy—but did not do so for its caseload size  measure. Timeliness. However, according to officials,  this calculation generally does not include those cases where  adjudicators had approved applicants, but reviewers found they should  have been disqualified (i.e., incorrectly approved). By  developing and documenting an accuracy rate measure that includes  data on both types of incorrectly adjudicated cases (approved and  disqualified), the Adjudication Center can determine an accuracy rate that  comprehensively captures accuracy performance and enables  Adjudication Center management to more effectively identify and address  performance issues among its workforce. While  officials with the two offices coordinate on a routine basis to share  information on workload completion, they do not have a process in place  to ensure that information in the Adjudication Center’s staffing plan—such  as caseload projections and associated staffing needs—reflects the  mutual understanding of both Adjudication Center and credentialing  program management officials. In this way, ensuring these components have access to respective  workforce planning documents by establishing a mechanism for OIA  Program Management Division and Adjudication Center officials to share  and reconcile information included in the Adjudication Center’s staffing  plan updates, such as timelines for anticipated workload growth, will help  ensure TSA is using accurate workload projections to guide the  Adjudication Center’s workforce planning. TSA Has Made Limited Progress in Addressing Risks Posed by Using Contract Employees to Adjudicate Security Threat Assessments

		TSA Assessment Identified Risks in the Adjudication Center’s Use of Contractors

Between January 2011 and September 2011, TSA conducted and  completed its DHS required BWS assessment for the Adjudication Center  contract and determined that the adjudicator position represented work  that is “closely associated with inherently governmental functions” and  that an excessive risk exists by allowing contractors to make security  credential approvals without sufficient federal oversight. TSA Has Not Updated and Approved the Conversion Plan and Key Plan Elements are Unclear

TSA’s delay in acting on the recommendations of Adjudication Center  conversion has rendered the implementation timelines and key hiring  level and cost information in its May 2012 conversion plan outdated or  unclear and TSA has not updated the plan to reflect these changes. TSA officials responsible for managing the conversion effort  acknowledged that the timelines for implementing its plan had been  delayed, and that TSA would not complete its workforce conversion  by the end of calendar year 2013 as proposed in its plan. Completing this review, determining this  information, and updating the conversion plan to ensure the plan reflects  current conditions and an estimation of cost savings will help TSA and  DHS decision makers by providing a roadmap for moving forward. Conclusions

TSA’s Adjudication Center plays a critical role by conducting security  threat assessments to ensure individuals posing security threats are  identified and are not granted TSA-related credentials for, among other  things, unescorted access to secure areas of the nation’s transportation  systems. Finally,  providing this plan to TSA and DHS leadership for review are important  steps to help ensure TSA addresses the risks identified in the 2011 BWS  assessment and has an appropriate workforce to make the decisions that  may ultimately deny or allow individuals credentials for unescorted access  to the nation’s critical transportation infrastructure. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the TSA  Administrator to take the following 5 actions:
To ensure that the Adjudication Center accuracy rate effectively  captures the center’s accuracy in completing security threat  assessments, the Adjudication Center should develop an accuracy  rate measure that includes accuracy data for cases where  adjudicators both approved and disqualified applicants, document this  methodology, and implement the process. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In its  comments, DHS stated that OIA is working with the DHS Office of the  Chief Human Capital Officer to address any potential issues posed by  using a mix of government employees and contractors. Within the Office  of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service, the Adjudication Center  is responsible for providing security threat assessment adjudication  services to meet the workload needs of TSA programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

TSA implements programs that, for example, ensure individuals with unescorted access to secure areas of the nation's critical transportation infrastructure do not pose a security threat. Key to these programs are security threat assessments that screen individuals for links to terrorism, criminal history, and immigration status. TSA's Adjudication Center serves as the primary operational component in this process. GAO was asked to examine the performance and staffing strategy of the center. This report addresses the extent to which 1) TSA has measured performance for the center and what the data show; 2) TSA offices have coordinated to meet security threat assessment workload; and 3) TSA addressed potential risks posed by using a mix of government employees and contractors to adjudicate security threat assessments. GAO analyzed TSA data describing the center's performance since October 2010; reviewed documentation, including staffing plans; and interviewed TSA officials about data measurement and staffing practices.

What GAO Found

The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Adjudication Center performance data show mixed results, and the center's performance measurement practices have limitations. The Adjudication Center relies on contractors to adjudicate security threat assessments and uses three primary measures to evaluate their performance--timeliness for completing adjudication, adjudication accuracy, and caseload status. GAO found that the Adjudication Center contractor met its timeliness and accuracy measures, but faced challenges in meeting its caseload measure. The Adjudication Center's timeliness and accuracy measures did not capture key data. According to TSA officials, the Adjudication Center's accuracy rate is based on a review of all cases where adjudicators had disqualified an applicant. However, this calculation generally does not include the accuracy rate for those applicants adjudicators had approved--which account for roughly 90 percent of the Adjudication Center's caseload. In this way, the accuracy rate provides a limited assessment of adjudicator performance. By developing an accuracy rate that includes data on both incorrectly disqualified and incorrectly approved applicants, TSA can better identify and addresses performance issues among its workforce.
Two TSA offices that share responsibility for implementing security threat assessments--the Program Management Division in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Adjudication Center in the Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service--can improve coordination on workforce planning. While the offices share information on workload completion, they do not have a process in place to ensure that information in the Adjudication Center's staffing plan--which the Adjudication Center periodically updates to reflect caseload projections and associated staffing needs--reflects the mutual understanding of both offices. For example, program managers in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis reported to GAO that they were unfamiliar with the staffing plan and they disagreed with workload projections in the plan. Establishing a mechanism for the offices to share and reconcile information in the plan can help better support the Adjudication Center's workforce planning.
TSA has been delayed in addressing risks posed by using contractors to adjudicate security threat assessments. In October 2011 TSA's Balanced Workforce Strategy Working Group completed its assessment for the Adjudication Center and determined that an excessive risk exists by allowing contractors to make security threat assessment approvals without sufficient federal oversight. The Working Group recommended that TSA convert to an all government workforce. According to a May 2012 implementation plan, TSA planned to convert this workforce by the end of calendar year 2013. However, delays have rendered the timelines and cost information in its plan outdated and TSA has not updated the plan or determined a revised implementation schedule. Completing this review and updating the plan would help TSA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision makers by providing a roadmap for moving forward. Finally, providing this plan to DHS for review will be important to help ensure TSA can begin its conversion and mitigate identified risks of using contract adjudicators to conduct security threat assessments.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that TSA, among other things: direct the Adjudication Center to calculate an accuracy rate that includes adjudicator performance for cases where applicants were both approved and disqualified; share adjudicator staffing plans among key program offices; and update its Adjudication Center workforce conversion plan and provide it to DHS for review and approval. DHS concurred with our recommendations.