In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to reform security clearance processes. The experience in evaluating personnel security clearance processes has consisted of examining the DoD program, which maintains 2.5 million clearances on service members, DoD civilian employees, legislative branch employees, and industry personnel working for DoD and 23 other fed. agencies. Long-standing delays in processing applications -- and other problems in DoD¿s clearance program -- led it to be designated a high-risk area in 2005. There has also been clearance-related problems in other agencies. Here, the author was asked to identify key factors that could be applied in personnel security clearance reform efforts.

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. In February 2008, GAO noted that a sound requirements process is important because requesting a clearance for a position in which it will not be needed, or in which a lower-level clearance would be sufficient, will increase both costs and investigative workload unnecessarily. For example, the cost of obtaining and maintaining a top secret clearance for 10 years is approximately 30 times greater than the cost of obtaining and maintaining a secret clearance for the same period. Also, changing a position's clearance level from secret to top secret increases the investigative workload for that position about 20-fold.

Personnel security clearances are used to verify that national security information -- which in some cases could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed -- is entrusted only to those who have proven reliability and loyalty to the nation. In response to long-standing problems with timeliness and backlogs, Congress mandated clearance reforms as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This report reviews the extent to which reform efforts: (1) align with key practices for organizational transformations; and (2) address identified factors for reforming the personnel security clearance process. Includes recommendations. Tables.

Since Jan. 2005, the DoD¿s personnel security clearance program has been placed on the list of high-risk government programs and operations. This statement discusses the personnel security joint reform efforts. It addresses: (1) elements of the most recent security clearance reform efforts; and (2) the extent to which the recent reform efforts address key factors that should be considered in efforts to reform the security process. Also identifies best practices that agencies can use to successfully transform their cultures and, accordingly, can guide the implementation of these personnel security clearance reform efforts. Charts and tables.

The Dept. of Defense (DoD) personnel security clearance program has been a high-risk entity since 2005, due to delays in the process and incomplete documentation. The Office of Personnel Mgmt. (OPM) conducts most of DoD's clearance investigations, which DoD adjudicators use to make clearance decisions. The Deputy Dir. for Mgmt. at the Office of Mgmt. and Budget chairs a Performance Accountability Council that is responsible for reforming the clearance process. This report addresses the: (1) reporting on timeliness for DoD clearances; (2) documentation completeness for making initial top-secret clearance decisions for DoD personnel; and (3) reporting on the quality of the clearance process. Includes recommend. Illus.

This correspondence provides a preliminary assessment of the timeliness and quality of the DoD personnel security clearance program. These findings are based on an ongoing engagement that the auditor has been conducting since Feb. 2008. In 2009, there will be a report providing more details regarding these findings. In response to a draft of this briefing report, DoD provided written comments and the Office of Personnel Mgmt. (OPM) provided comments via e-mail. The summary and evaluation of DoD's and OPM's comments and DoD's written comments are included here. Charts and tables.