The TSA establishes airport security policy through intelligence and data analysis then self-regulates the physical application of required security measures. This structure has proven to be faulty as the administration has a tendency to spend a majority its time and money on security management rather than focusing on anti-terrorism intelligence. Allocated funds for counter-terrorism intelligence have been continuously limited due to the requirement that TSA maintains its own passenger and baggage screening operations. This significant lack of funding for intelligence programs results in the agency having a reactive approach to security rather than one which is preventative. For the fiscal year of 2014, roughly 67% of the TSA's budget was allotted for security measures while only 18% went towards information technology and intelligence. Additionally, since the administration is responsible for supplying security officers, a large portion of its budget is used for hiring and training of staff which cost tax payers roughly $2.4 billion between 2002 and 2011. I believe that transitioning to a privately owned and operated security system would allow the TSA to focus more of its time and money on intelligence gathering and improving the technology available to combat terrorism. A possible issue I see with this is placing the responsibility of airport security in the hands of private security firms would require a complete evaluation of each individual company before contracts are awarded. This process would require a additional government spending as well as a complete overhaul of the TSA. The overall issue is that extensive research has shown that the security measures implemented after the attacks of September 11th have not improved our nations security. Returning to a privatized security system would free up man hours and program funds that could be used to improve anti-terrorism intelligence and technology. This would allow the government to be more proactive in intelligence gathering and permit private security firms and individual airports to manage their own security operations. Once proper guidelines and regulations are met the government would be able to ensure that acceptable standards of security are met. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa742_web_1.pdf http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/screening-partnership-program http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony Poole.pdf
Not really. Hiring private security companies under contract is often much more expensive then directly hiring them. Especially if it is for a permanent basis as opposed to a short term solution. And the turnover of these contractors is much higher, resulting in increased training costs and lower overall performance. Trust me here, I have been working in security both in and out of uniform off and on for over 30 years. Contracting "rent a cops" is much more expensive then hiring them. And the turnover of TSA contract guards is high. In order to make money they are actually among the bottom of the pay scale, and few want to work those kinds of hours for that kind of pay. When I returned to security work recently, I considered taking one of the TSA contract jobs, but decided against it. I make the same amount of money doing loss prevention (ie: catching shoplifters) at a local supermarket as I would working with TSA. And with much less money spent on my part. I normally work less then 10 miles from home. If I had taken the TSA job, it would have meant a 45 minute drive each day, a toll bridge crossing ($6), and having to pay to park my car in the Airport Parking lot (employees of the airport got a reduced rate but still have to pay to park there every day). The $1 an hour more I would have gotten for doing the TSA contract would not have paid for all of my expenses when compared to working in my home city.
