Personnel Clearances: Questions for the Record Regarding Security
Clearance Reform (14-JUL-08, GAO-08-965R).
On May 22, 2008, we testified before the Congressional
subcommittee at a hearing on Security Clearance Reform. This
letter responds to three questions for the record. (1) Has GAO
noted any efforts in the Joint Reform Team report to address the
quality of investigative and adjudicative work and if not, can
GAO suggest some steps that might be taken? (2) Since the
Department of Defense (DOD) was put on GAO's high-risk list, GAO
has been recommending DOD develop methods to better forecast
long-term funding needs for the clearance process. What are GAO's
thoughts on the steps taken by the Defense Security Service
(DSS), including its use of a refined web-based survey, to better
forecast its workload? (3) What suggestions does GAO have for the
Joint Reform Team and Congress as we move forward with plans to
reform the security clearance process?
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-965R
ACCNO: A82839
TITLE: Personnel Clearances: Questions for the Record Regarding
Security Clearance Reform
DATE: 07/14/2008
SUBJECT: Accountability
Defense capabilities
Eligibility determinations
Employees
Federal employees
Federal funds
Future budget projections
Investigations by federal agencies
Program evaluation
Program management
Quality assurance
Quality improvement
Security clearances
Surveys
Policies and procedures
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-965R
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to [email protected].
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-08-965R:
July 14, 2008:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Subject: Personnel Clearances: Questions for the Record Regarding
Security Clearance Reform:
On May 22, 2008, I testified before your subcommittee at a hearing on
Security Clearance Reform.[Footnote 1] This letter responds to three
questions for the record you posed. Your questions and my responses
follow.
1. Your testimony indicates that a greater emphasis on quality
throughout the clearance process could promote reciprocity. Have you
noted any efforts in the Joint Reform Team report to address the
quality of investigative and adjudicative work and if not, can you
suggest some steps that might be taken?
Through our reports and testimonies, we have emphasized a need to build
more quality and quality monitoring into the clearance process. For
example, in our September 2006 report,[Footnote 2] we identified
concerns about quality in the personnel security clearance process and
noted that the lack of full reciprocity of clearances--when a security
clearance granted by one agency is accepted by another agency--is an
outgrowth of agencies' concerns that other agencies may have granted
clearances based on inadequate investigations and adjudications. As I
noted in my May 22, 2008, testimony, we believe quality metrics should
be applied throughout all six phases of the security clearance process
(i.e., requirements setting, application submission, investigation,
adjudication, appeal, and clearance updating). In addition, we have
initiated discussions with the Office of Management and Budget and the
Office of Personnel Management about the importance of including
quality in the security clearance process.
At the request of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
we recently initiated an engagement assessing the Joint Reform Team's
plans to reform the security clearance process. In this review, we will
assess whether the Joint Reform Team's plan and its ongoing efforts
address the key factors I discussed at your hearing on May 22, 2008,
one of which is building more quality and quality monitoring throughout
the clearance process. In a separate engagement initiated under the
authority of the Comptroller General, we are evaluating both the
quality and timeliness of the Department of Defense's (DOD) personnel
security clearances. To evaluate quality in this engagement, we are
surveying DOD adjudicators--who review clearance investigation files to
determine clearance eligibility--and evaluating clearance adjudication
files. When we complete this engagement, we will be available to
provide a briefing about our findings to you and your staff on request.
2. Since the Department of Defense (DOD) was put on GAO's high-risk
list, GAO has been recommending DOD develop methods to better forecast
long-term funding needs for the clearance process. What are your
thoughts on the steps taken by the Defense Security Service (DSS),
including its use of a refined web-based survey, to better forecast its
workload?
In our February 2008 report on DOD's personnel security program for
industry,[Footnote 3] we reported that DOD's procedures for projecting
its long-term funding needs for industry personnel security clearances
are evolving. While conducting the audit work for this report, DOD
officials explained to us that the Defense Security Service (DSS) is
responsible for conducting an annual survey of contractors performing
classified work for the government. In this survey, DSS asks
contractors to estimate their future clearance investigation needs for
industry personnel. The survey results are used to forecast estimates
of the future investigation workload and budget requirements. In its
efforts to improve the accuracy of these estimates, DSS has made
several recent changes. In 2006, for example, DSS made its annual
survey accessible through the Internet. In addition, DSS has begun to
use its field staff to actively encourage industry representatives to
complete the voluntary survey. According to a DSS official, these two
changes increased the response rate of surveyed facilities from
historical lows of between 10 and 15 percent in previous years to a 70
percent response rate in 2007, representing 86 percent of industry
personnel with a clearance in fiscal year 2007. Improvements in the
survey response rate may help DOD to improve its forecasts of long-term
funding needs for the industry personnel security program. Improvements
to DOD's long-term funding forecasts would help enable it to implement
the recommendation we made in our February 2008 report to add
additional out-years of projected funding information to its annual
report to Congress on the personnel security clearance program for
industry.
3. What suggestions do you have for the Joint Reform Team and Congress
as we move forward with plans to reform the security clearance process?
As the Joint Reform Team continues with its efforts to reform the
security clearance process, we suggest that it review our past reports
and testimonies on personnel security clearances to understand the
weaknesses we have previously identified in the process and the
recommendations we have made to help DOD address those weaknesses. Our
previous work in this area has provided us with broad institutional
knowledge, enabling us to identify key factors that should be
considered in security clearance reform efforts. As I emphasized in my
May 22, 2008, statement, efforts to reform personnel security clearance
processes should consider, among other things, the following four key
factors: (1) a strong requirements determination process, (2) quality
in all clearance processes, (3) metrics to provide a fuller picture of
clearance processes, and (4) long-term funding requirements of security
clearance reform. As the Joint Reform Team moves forward, we suggest
that it design its approach to ensure that these key factors are
incorporated into the reformed process.
Past experience has shown that Congress has every reason to remain
vigilant and continue its oversight of this high-risk area. The Joint
Reform Team's initial efforts to develop a new governmentwide security
clearance process represent a positive step toward addressing past
impediments and managing security reform efforts. However, continued
oversight will help ensure that the momentum of these initial reform
efforts continues, particularly as the upcoming change in
administration takes place. Much remains to be done to improve the
security clearance process governmentwide, and GAO stands ready to
assist Congress in its continued oversight of this high-risk area.
If you or other members of the subcommittee have any additional
questions about personnel security clearance reform, please contact me
at (202) 512-3604 or [email protected]. In addition, contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this correspondence. GAO staff members who made
major contributions to this correspondence are listed in the enclosure.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure:
Enclosure I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or [email protected]:
Acknowledgments In addition to the contact above, David E. Moser,
Assistant Director; Renee S. Brown; Shvetal Khanna; James P. Klein;
Caryn E. Kuebler; Ronald La Due Lake; and Gregory A. Marchand made key
contributions to this correspondence.
[End of correspondence]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Personnel Clearances: Key Factors for Reforming the Security
Clearance Process, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-
776T[ (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2008).
[2] GAO, DOD Personnel Clearances: Additional OMB Actions Are Needed to
Improve the Security Clearance Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1070] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
28, 2006).
[3] GAO, DOD Personnel Clearances: Improved Annual Reporting Would
Enable More Informed Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-350] (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
13, 2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***