Security Clearance Jobs Blog

DOD News Release on Security Clearances:

“The Department of Defense (DoD) released information today [February 25, 2011] about improvements made to the personnel security clearance process.  Over the past four years, the DoD has worked with the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management to streamline processes, make changes to policies, introduce extensive information technology improvements, and eliminate a backlog of approximately 100,000 pending cases.  These improvements led to a 72 percent reduction in the time it takes to process an individual’s security clearance – from an average of 165 days in 2006 to 47 days today….”

“The Department of Defense was steadfast in its commitment to substantially improve performance in this area,” said Deputy Chief Management Officer Elizabeth McGrath.  “Not only because of the personal inconvenience experienced by individuals when navigating the clearance process, but also because delays in processing security clearances can cause delays in placing highly-qualified individuals in the cleared positions that need them. . . .”

63 Comments »

On December 1, 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented testimony before a House subcommittee. The testimony was presented in the form of a report (GAO-11-232T) entitled: “Personnel Security Clearances: Overall Progress Has Been Made to Reform the Governmentwide Security Clearance Process.” The testimony covered 3 major long standing issues: a single federal database for clearance information, reciprocity, and timeliness.

The “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” (IRTPA) “required that no later than 12 months after the date of its enactment, the Director of OPM and the Director of OMB establish and commence operating and maintaining a single, integrated database of security clearance information.” No single integrated database exists or is planned. Instead, OPM’s Central Verification System (CVS) provides a “single search” capability for about 90% of all investigations and clearances. Integrating the remaining 10% of Intelligence Community (IC) clearances remains problematic.

Government agencies reported requiring additional investigation and/or adjudication on some currently cleared individuals for reasons that are not permitted by existing reciprocity rules. Due to the absence of government-wide metrics for reciprocity, GAO was unable to measure the degree of non-compliance with clearance reciprocity requirements.

GAO acknowledged that significant improvements in timeliness of clearances had been made and that overall timeliness requirements of the IRTPA had been met. GAO noted that of the agencies they reviewed DOD, DOE, and NGA had consistently met the 60-day IRPTA requirement during the first three quarters of FY2010 (October 2009 to June 2010), and 11 other agencies had not. A chart on page 7 of GAO-11-232T reported timeliness for seven IC agencies and seven non-IC agencies.

22 Comments »

On November 16, 2010 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and representatives from the Department of Defense (DOD), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided updated information on security clearance reform at a hearing before a Senate subcommittee,

The DNI stated that during the 4^th quarter of FY 2010 the government-wide average processing time for the fastest 90% of initial security clearances was 53 days (42 days for investigations and 11 days for adjudication).  It is anticipated that the new Federal Investigative Standards (originally approved in December 2008, but never implemented) will be expanded from a 3-tier to a 5-tier structure.  A date was not given for when the revised standards would be finalized.

DOD, which issues nearly 90% of all initial security clearances, reported average completion times for the fastest 90% of initial DOD security clearances of 47 days for investigations and 9 days for adjudications during the 4^th quarter of FY 2010.

OPM, which conducts 90% of all clearance investigations and services DOD and 11 other federal agencies, reported that its Federal Investigative Services Division currently has a combined federal and contractor staff of 9,100 investigators and support personnel.  A new revised Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86), which was approved by OMB in March 2010, is scheduled to be implemented in December 2010.  Currently 98% of SF86 submissions are received via the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP).  OPM provided the following data for initial security clearance investigations:

Note:  Apparently not included in DNI, DOD, or OPM data, is the 14 days allocated for “initiation time”—the time in days from the date of SF86 submission by the applicant to the receipt date of all information/forms required to conduct an investigation by the investigative service provider.

40 Comments »

After resolving differences with the Senate version, the House version (HR 2701) of the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) was signed by the President and became Public Law No: 111-259 on October 7, 2010. (This is the first IAA to become law since 2004; others either died in Congress or were successfully vetoed.) Here are the highlights:

• Requires reports, reports and more reports.
• Establishes the Inspector General (IG) of the Intelligence Community (IC).
• Requires ODNI to issue a directive concerning GAO access to IC information.

Reports containing the following information regarding security clearance are required:

1. Total number of active security clearances at each level as of October 1 of the preceding year and the number granted during the preceding fiscal year.

2. For each IC element by level of clearance:

• Time it took to grant clearances during the preceding fiscal year, expressed in terms of the average for the fastest 80%, fastest 90%, slowest 20% and slowest 10%.
• Number of pending investigations as of October 1 that have remained pending for 4 months or less, 4 to 8 months, 8 to 12 months, and more than 12 months.
• Percentage of cases that resulted in clearance denial/revocation during the previous fiscal year.
• Percentage of investigations during the previous fiscal year that contained incomplete/insufficient information.
• Number of cases that took more than 1 year to complete by investigative and adjudicative agencies and the cause for delays.

3. No later than April 2011 a report on Government-wide investigative standards, adjudicative guidelines, and quality metrics; a plan to improve professional development of adjudicators; and metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of clearance reciprocity.

4. No later than April 2011 a report on the feasibility of reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies to 2 each within a year and reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies to 1 each within 4 years.

5. Not later than April 2011 a report by the IC IG on reciprocity of security clearances between IC agencies.

Comments Off

In September 2009 representatives of OMB, OPM, ODNI, and DOD testified before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding security clearance reform. (See 16 Sep 2009 blog topic “Congressional Hearing On Security Clearance Reform.”) Post-Hearing Questions (and answers) for the record were recently published as an appendix to the hearing report.

One of the most interesting questions concerned the number of cases returned to OPM by DOD due to incompleteness. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper’s response on page 93 was illuminating:

In FY 2008, the Department returned approximately 188,483 cases and in FY 2009, the Department returned approximately 129,558 cases. Some cases are returned to OPM due to incompleteness or because they were missing critical expansion of developed issues. Other cases are returned or requested to be reopened because the subject of the case was deployed and could not be reached to complete the subject interview. However, in many instances where investigations received from OPM lack investigative scope items or other necessary information, adjudicators contact the subject or agencies themselves to obtain missing information in order to avoid timeliness delays or to avoid incurring additional costs. The Department does not currently have a means to track those cases.

In FY 2008, the Department was charged approximately $86,303,826 and in FY 2009, $63,104,471 for cases returned to OPM due to incompleteness or with requests for additional information.

Here is OPM Director John Berry’s response on page 90 to a slightly different question:

During FY 2009 of the 2,157,531 investigations closed, 1721 (.08 percent) were reopened due to quality concerns. Of the 1721 investigations reopened, 1362 (79 percent) were conducted by contractors, and 359 (21 percent) by Federal employees. The quality reopen percentages rates trend very closely to the actual workload distribution between contractor and Federal staff.

Clapper’s response addressed only DOD security clearance investigations, which totaled about 650,000 in FY 2009. Berry’s response included all agencies and all types of investigations, including single agency checks. Even if the majority of the cases returned by DOD to OPM were because the subject of the case was deployed, it’s still very difficult to reconcile DOD’s 20% return rate with OPM’s .08% “quality” reopen rate. And in how many cases did DOD adjudicators obtain information by themselves that should have been in the report of investigation?

23 Comments »

On March 10, 2010 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a new version of the Standard Form 86—SF86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions). The only description of the new form currently available is a PDF file, consisting of 453 pages of explanations and screen shots of the eQIP version, posted at the reginfo.gov website. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has not yet posted the new form at their website. The last revision of the SF86 was approved in July 2008. OPM did not post that version of the form on their website until October 2008 and the eQIP version was not available for use by contractors until January 2009.

The new March 2010 version of the SF86 is considerably different and longer than the version submitted for public comment in September 2009. That version was described on this blog at “OPM Submits New SF86 for Review” in October 2009. Major changes now include:

• Purpose of this form—“This form may also be used by agencies in determining whether a subject performing work for, or on behalf of, the Government under a contract should be deemed eligible for logical or physical access when the nature of the work to be performed is sensitive and could bring about an adverse effect on the national security.”
• History of residences, schools, and employment require 10 years of information for all levels of clearances.
• Many new and expanded questions were added regarding foreign connections, foreign involvement, and foreign travel.
• Reportable foreign associates now include those with whom you are bound by a “common interest” (a significant change that may affect social media contacts).
• New and expanded questions were added regarding financial records, police records, drugs, alcohol, and mental health.

These changes are in line with the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team’s (JSSRT) planned expansion of upfront comprehensive follow-up questions necessary to enhance the collection of subject-reported information as early as possible in the investigative process. Answers to the new and expanded questions represent information that would otherwise have to be obtained during a Subject Interview by an investigator and will result in shorter Subject Interview times for applicants with complicated personal histories.

27 Comments »

In February 2010 the U.S. House of Representatives passed their version (HR 2701) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.  The Senate passed their version (S.1494) in September 2009.  Hopefully the two versions will be reconciled, passed by Congress, and sent to the President.

The House version creates an Ombudsman for Intelligence Community (IC) security clearances in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and requires each IC agency to provide contact information for the ombudsman to all clearance applicants.

The House version also requires the President to submit to Congress within 180 days of enactment a report that includes the feasibility, counterintelligence risk, and cost effectiveness of –

• by not later than January 1, 2012, requiring the investigation and adjudication of security clearances to be conducted by not more than two Federal agencies; and

• by not later than January 1, 2015, requiring the investigation and adjudication of security clearance to be conducted by not more than one Federal agency.

Both the creation of an ombudsman for IC clearances and a formal study on reducing the number of investigative and adjudicative agencies seem like excellent ideas.  Both could result in improving clearance reciprocity.  The last time an Intelligence Authorization Act became law was in December 2004.  The ones since then have either died in Congress or been successfully vetoed.  So, this may not be the best vehicle to further these two ideas.

8 Comments »

On December 7, 2009 Psnews reported that the Government of Australian will consolidate the granting of all security clearances under their Department of Defence by October 2010. Currently clearances are granted by more than 100 different agencies using 50 separate investigative service providers.

“The new approach is expected to save $5.3 million a year and improve the security vetting process by ensuring Public Servants and business contractors have a single clearance effective across Government.  It was also designed to address unnecessary regulation and remove inconsistencies within the current system.”

Australia only processes about 50,000 federal security clearances a year (about 6% of the number processed in the U.S.), but it’s still commendable that government agencies there are wililng to surrender authority for their own security clearances to a single agency in order to create a monolithic system that promises greater efficiency and consistency.

3 Comments »

The quest to speed up the security clearance process continues with several Senators introducing the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act of 2009 yesterday.

Overall the bill’s goal is similar to the Executive Order 13467 President Bush signed in June 2008 and would codify many of those provisions.

An article in NextGov goes on to say that the bill would:

• “mandate the creation of a performance accountability council to oversee the reduction of the government’s security clearance backlog and extends reporting requirements.”
• director of OMB will submit an IT strategy to Congress within 120 days of the bill’s enactment to speed up the security clearance process.
• “agencies would have to continue reporting to Congress on their progress in improving the security clearance process until two years after GAO removes the program from the high-risk list.”

“As for reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, the legislation, a Senate Democratic committee aide said the bill “reemphasizes” that requirement. “We were getting the sense that not everyone was following the intent, as we saw it, of what reciprocal recognition was,” the staffer said.”

Related Articles: Security Clearance Reciprocity of Special Access Eligibility

6 Comments »

On September 15, 2009 a hearing was held before a Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Federal government’s security clearance reform process. Testifying before the subcommittee were representatives of OMB, OPM, DOD, ODNI, and GAO. Transcripts of their prepared statements are posted at the Senate subcommittee’s website.

Here are some highlights from the prepared statements:

• 90% of initial clearance investigations by OPM are done in an average of 37 days.
• Average investigation for a Top Secret clearance now takes 79 days.
• Average investigation for a Secret clearance now takes 47 days.
• Security clearance investigation backlog (cases older than 180 days) has been eliminated.
• E-Adjudication of Secret clearances was implemented for DOD industrial cases in September 2009 (originally planned for May 2009). This capability will be extended to the Air Force and Navy adjudication facilities by December 2009.

Here are some of the lowlights:

• 11% of initial clearance eligibility decisions took more than 300 days to complete in FY08.
• Only 260,000 of the estimated 3 million active security clearances are currently in OPM’s Clearance Verification System.
• The new Federal Investigative Standards that were approved in December 2009 (but not yet implement) will be changed.
• The new SF86, originally expected to be approved by January 2009, won’t even be available for public comment until late September 2009 (a lengthy process required before final approval).
• According to GAO, long-term funding requirements for the reformed process still have not been identified.

27 Comments »

An article in the National Journal covers a security clearance process that is painfully slow at the State Department. For entry level employees at the State Department, especially interns, start dates are moved back waiting for a security clearance.

In most cases, the State Department outsources investigations to contractors, however, when an applicant has lived or traveled extensively overseas, Diplomatic Security takes over the investigation.  The State Department processes 25,000 clearance cases a year and in 3Q of this year, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security needed an average of 54 days to issue entry-level clearances, down from 64 days in 2008.

In addition, the article airs allegations made by the group called Concerned Foreign Service Officers regarding State Department investigators of sometimes practicing ethnic and religious profiling, resulting from insufficient internal checks.

Follow-up: A blog on Foreign Policy published reactions from former State Department interns on this issue.

Quote of the day: “With the clearance process, as an applicant, you don’t know anything…” – State Department would-be intern.

11 Comments »

PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCES: An Outcome-Focused Strategy Is Needed to Guide Implementation of the Reformed Clearance Process (GAO-09-488), May 2009:

The security clearance reform process has already been underway for several years, and various agencies involved have created and revised several plans for improvement. Although the high-level leadership and governance structure of the current reform effort distinguish it from previous efforts, without a strategic framework that fully addresses the long-standing security clearance problems and incorporates key practices for transformation including the ability to demonstrate progress leading to desired results the effort is at risk of losing momentum and not being fully implemented.

The GAO report made several recommendations for establishing a strategic framework for the joint reform effort, including clearer goals, outcome-focused performance measures, formal communications strategy, further definition of roles and responsibilities for implementation of IT strategy, and determining funding requirements.

Somewhat disturbing was the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) response to the draft version of GAO-09-488:

OPM believes that it is important not to conflate the suitability and security clearance processes. Nonetheless, it recognizes that there are areas of commonality between the two and agrees that both processes should be administered efficiently and aligned where appropriate. The means by which these goals are accomplished, however ”whether through the governance structure established by Executive Order 13467 (and studied by the GAO) or in some other fashion”is currently under review by the new Administration, as are the reform initiatives discussed in the draft report. This review may result in a new governance structure and/or new goals and standards. For that reason, while the critiques discussed in GAO’s report will certainly merit consideration going forward, I do not believe that it would be productive at this time to address with greater specificity the concerns it expresses about the past management of the reform process.

A new governance structure and/or new goals and standards?

4 Comments »

Many qualified people find themselves unable to successfully compete for federal positions because they don’t have an “active” or “current” security clearance. This situation is often characterized as a “Catch-22″ in that you can’t get sponsored for a security clearance without a job offer from a federal agency or contractor, and you often can’t get the job offer without a clearance.

A British IT contractor recently initiated an E-Petition at the UK Prime Minister’s website requesting that individuals be allowed to pay for their own clearances. So far 614 people have signed the petition. An American initiated a similar petition at a non-governmental E-Petition website without suggesting who would pay for the processing and has only gathered 22 signatures. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The UK Prime Minister’s E-Petition website has existed for over a year, but a similar website for the US President is only now being discussed on a blog page at the White House website.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducts about 80% of all federal security clearance investigations. Their current price for a standard NACLC investigation needed for a contractor Secret clearance is $221. Because OPM clearance investigations are handled on a fee-for-service basis, the mechanism exists for individuals to pay for their own investigations, but no mechanism exists to pay for adjudicating the investigations. Another obstacle to self-sponsorship is the federal government’s policy to limit clearance requests to only those positions for which a validate need exists. Without these 2 obstacles private companies could fill the need to provide the necessary front-end application and payment processing.

Is it time for the federal government to allow people to sponsor themselves for a security clearance, if they are willing to personally pay for it?

15 Comments »

A May 2009 report, The DHS Personnel Security Process, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that:

“Department of Homeland Security personnel security offices are performing similar functions but use different policies throughout the personnel security process. Across the department, components strive to provide quality results in a timely manner but often are delayed by applicants, overwhelmed by customer service requests, restricted by database functions, and limited by information availability.”

The report made 20 recommendations to improve the Department of Homeland Security’s personnel security process, including some recommendations to consolidate security functions. As of November 2008 DHS was phasing in the use of a new department-wide web-based system to manage investigations and clearances to replace the 9 separate systems used by component agencies. Currently about half the components of DHS have authority to conduct their own clearance investigations. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Custom Enforcement contract for background investigations with several private companies. US Coast Guard and DHS Headquarters use a mix of investigative services provided by contractors and the Office of Personnel Management. The Secret Service uses internal investigative resources.

The report also contained investigative and adjudicative elapse times by departmental components. For 2008 average investigative times ranged from 30 to 96 days and average adjudicative times ranged from 17 to 147 days.

Related Article: DHS to Streamline Security Clearance Process

26 Comments »

On May 8, 2009 John Berry, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) jokingly told a senate subcommittee that his agency was sometimes referred to as the “Office of Personnel Recommendations.”  Berry made this comment at a hearing on the Federal Hiring Process Improvement Act of 2009 (S.736). OPM has no ability to force other federal agencies to comply with existing personnel rules, and no penalties exist for noncompliance.

Regardless of Berry’s stated intent to administratively implement the provisions of S736, the legislation is necessary for any substantive changes to the government’s cumbersome and slow hiring practices. S.736 seeks to:

• Require agencies to promptly notify applicants of their status at each major step of the selection process.
• Fill vacancies in an average of 80 days or less.
• Allow applicants to submit a cover letter, resume, and answers to brief questions, such as questions relating to United States citizenship and veterans status, to complete an application
• Improve job announcements
• Eliminate KSAs (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities) essays.

23 Comments »