GAO Report on Clearance Process Stresses Quality Not Speed
In testimony Thursday before a House subcommittee, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) official delivered her agency’s most recent assessment of coordinated government efforts to reform the security clearance process. She said that those efforts have focused too much on reducing the time necessary to issue new or renewed clearanced and too little on ensuring the quality of the clearance process. She also said that commiting funds specifically for security clearance reforms could ensure better Congressional oversight.
ClearedCommunity.com wishes to point out, however, that many Congressional panels recently, as we have previously noted, have taken up the issue of security clearance reform, and it is unclear whether additional funding intended specifically to boost Congressional interest is necessary. Those with opinions are invited to share them here.
Filed Under: Reform
Being a federal investigator in this field for over 20 years, it never ceases to amaze me that few understand a principal cause for the problems with clearances: lack of boots on the ground.
When I started there were around 2300 field agents in DIS. When Congress transferred us to OPM in Feb 05, 1260 trained agents were transferred (the books say that around 1800 agents were transferred, but this number included around 530 DSS personnel who were not field agents…..computer professionals, secretaries and investigative technicians. They were handed badges and told they were now agents.)
Do the math….at a time when the need for cleared personnel was at its greatest, there were around half the trained agents than 12 years prior. This is where the question of Congressional oversight of funding for this mission is critical.
It has been alarming to see all the focus on PSIs (personal security investigations) remain on timeliness, with almost no discussion of quality.
While still in DSS, our organic counter-intel personnel in my region received around five to six CI referrals monthly. Now they are lucky to get around five to six YEARLY. The focus has largely been on numbers, not the threat. In the age of blond-haired, blue-eyed recruiting by Al-Quieda, this should be a concern to all.
I give GAO credit for identifying quality as a major concern. OPM has quality metrics, but they are internal (did the agent get the correct number of leads, was the case written third-person past tense), not whether issues were thoroughly explored.
If the requesting agency wants expansion of issues, they must negotiate with OPM for additional payments to cover the issues. Often the lead has grown cold by then and the resolution is proforma.
I hope GAO is able to get the attention of Congress on the issue of quality. It would be easier on me to do things the current way, but I would rather do it right than have it done by Tuesday.
Posted by Laner on May 28, 2008 at 03:27PM