DHS’s ranking is third from the bottom (#27 out of 29) in a federally mandated survey of best federal agencies to work at. To be fair, although TSA is the major contributor to the DHS data, it is only one of 22 DHS components, and “working conditions” may or may not translate very well to providing security services.  There’s two ways of looking at it: TSA has improved 23 percent from the last survey – that’s good – but they’re still third from the bottom – not so hot, beating out only the National Archives and Records Administration (I didn’t know there was one) and the Department of Transportation, which houses the FAA (another scary data point).

The Partnership for Public Service says, “It’s about management and leadership” -- which leads to the next observation: I continue to be amazed at the complete lack of media notice paid to the fact that TSA still, at mid-year, has not appointed an Administrator. Industry chatter indicates that no less than four, possibly five, people have thoughtfully, some might say wisely, declined the offer (even before the survey above).  It’s hard to determine whether identifying TSA leadership is just a low DHS priority, or an invitation to a public smack-down.   

In recent interviews, DHS Secretary Napolitano has suggested that security for modes of transportation other than aviation will receive increased attention during her tenure, which is admirable. But wouldn’t that require an even stronger administrative presence to coordinate and balance such efforts among aviation, maritime, rail, surface, and pipeline transportation?  Common wisdom assumes that as aviation has become a harder target, the bad guys will likely gravitate toward softer ones. Many observers, myself among them, have long argued for the idea of greatly enhancing the intelligence budget so we can catch them three weeks  before they ever head for the airport, cruise ship, or train station, rather than spending billions to try to catch them within the few seconds it takes them to go through the checkpoint.

This takes us to the last piece of today’s rant.  I cannot talk about specific details of just how well the front door is being guarded, but there are frequent media stories about various weapons popping up two or three legs into a journey. They’re almost certainly not precursors to a hijack attempt, although it’s possible. But they are indicators that the screening system can be less than successful, to the point where TSA itself was caught with its proverbial pants down in a recent series of covert tests by the DHS Inspector General (Report OIG-09-43) which outlines how TSA compromised the tests with an e-mail to field offices warning of the testing, so that they wouldn’t fail.

Returning to the initial theme of this column, it’s not hard to understand why TSA’s annual turnover rate is high – last I heard, many months ago, it was around 22 percent. Yes, it is about either a lack of management and leadership or a lack of confidence in their own screening policies, procedures, equipment, training, and quality control -- or all of the above. So, who will take the bait, and the beating, to head up TSA?  I have no insight or predictions, but a lot of sympathy.