Separate from, but related to, security clearances, are suitability  determinations. Significant Overall Progress Has Been Made to Improve Timeliness, but Some Executive Agencies Continue to Face Challenges in Meeting Timeliness Objectives

		Timeliness Varies Across Agencies

The government has reported that significant overall progress has been  made to improve the investigation and adjudication of personnel security  clearance applications in a timely manner. This is largely attributable to  DOD, whose clearances comprise a vast majority of governmentwide  initial clearances. IRTPA required the executive branch to develop a plan  under which, to the extent practical, each authorized adjudicative agency  would be required to make a determination on at least 90 percent of initial  security clearances within an average of 60 days by December 17, 2009. As can be seen in figure 2,  according to the Performance Accountability Council’s February 2010  annual report to Congress, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, two  agencies—the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National  Reconnaissance Office—met the timeliness requirement for investigations,  seven agencies—the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human  Services, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency,  the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of State—met the  timeliness objectives for adjudications, and five agencies—the Department  of Defense, Department of Energy, the National Geospatial-Intelligence  Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Department of  State—met the 60-day IRTPA timeliness objective. Performance Accountability Council Has Not Reported on Impediments to Meeting Timeliness Objectives or Plans to Address Impediments

While the Performance Accountability Council, responsible for driving  implementation of the reform effort and ensuring accountability, has taken  steps to assist in implementation of reform efforts, it has not reported on  the impediments to meeting timeliness objectives or plans to address  impediments. Executive Agencies Often Grant Reciprocity, Although Challenges Exist to Measuring and Tracking Reciprocity

		Executive Agency Officials Reported That They Routinely Honor Another Agency’s Security Clearance, but Additional Steps May Be Taken before Granting Reciprocity

Officials representing executive branch agencies, including those within  the Intelligence Community, stated that they routinely grant reciprocity  (i.e., accept a background investigation or clearance determination  completed by another authorized investigative or adjudicative agency). IRTPA generally requires that all security clearance investigations and  determinations be accepted by all agencies, with limited exceptions when  necessary for national security purposes. For example:    Insufficient information. OPM has taken  steps to ensure certain clearance data necessary for reciprocity is  available to adjudicators. For example:    Conducting suitability determinations. In the Absence of Consistent Metrics and Reporting Requirements, the Extent to Which Reciprocity Is Granted Is Unknown

Although agency officials have stated that reciprocity is regularly granted,  agencies do not have complete records on the extent to which previously  granted security clearance investigations and adjudications are honored  governmentwide. The  Performance Accountability Council developed quality metrics, including  metrics to track reciprocity, in response to a March 2010 congressional  inquiry. Although There Are No Plans to Develop a Single, Integrated Database, Steps Have Been Taken to Upgrade Existing Systems and Increase Information Sharing

		The Executive Branch Has Opted to Leverage Existing Systems in Lieu of a Single, Integrated Database

Tasked with establishing a single, integrated database, the executive  branch has opted to focus on leveraging existing systems rather than  establish a new database. Instead, the focus will be on using a single search  capability of existing databases as the means by which they intend to  address the IRTPA requirement. OPM, DOD, and ODNI officials with whom we spoke explained that  establishing, operating, and maintaining a single, integrated database is  not a viable option due to concerns related to privacy, security, and data  ownership. Information from Two Primary Databases Can Be Accessed from a Single Entry Point

Although there are no plans to create a new governmentwide database,  non-intelligence agencies in our review are sharing information about  personnel who hold or are seeking security clearances through two main  databases that can be accessed through a single entry point. All three agencies concurred with all of our  recommendations. Specifically, ODNI  noted that DOD, with the majority of clearances, achieved timeliness goals  for adjudications for fiscal year 2010. To assess the extent to which executive branch agencies investigate and  adjudicate initial personnel security clearance applications in a timely  manner, we analyzed the timeliness objectives specified in the Intelligence  Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) and reviewed the  self-reported timeliness data contained in the Performance Accountability  Council’s Security and Suitability Process Reform Strategic Framework  provided by the Performance Accountability Council Subcommittee on  Performance Management and Measures for the first three quarters of  fiscal year 2010. Related GAO Products

DOD Personnel Security Clearance Reform: Preliminary Observations  on Timeliness and Quality. DOD Personnel Clearances: Delays and Inadequate Documentation  Found for Industry Personnel.
Why GAO Did This Study

In light of long-standing problems with delays and backlogs, Congress mandated personnel security clearance reforms through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). These included requirements related to timeliness, reciprocity, and the creation of a single database to house personnel security clearance information. In 2008, Executive Order 13467 established the Performance Accountability Council. GAO was asked to review the extent to which executive branch agencies (1) investigate and adjudicate personnel security clearance applications in a timely manner, (2) honor previously granted security clearances, and (3) share personnel security clearance information in a single, integrated database. GAO reviewed and analyzed Performance Accountability Council timeliness data for fiscal year 2009 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010. GAO also examined key clearance reform documents and conducted interviews with executive branch agencies, including members of the Intelligence Community, to discuss the three stated objectives.

What GAO Found

Significant overall progress has been made to improve the investigation and adjudication of personnel security clearance applications in a timely manner. This is largely attributable to the Department of Defense (DOD), whose clearances comprise a vast majority of governmentwide initial clearances. IRTPA establishes an objective for all agencies to make a determination on at least 90 percent of all applications for a personnel security clearance within an average of 60 days. The majority of clearances are processed in line with the IRTPA 60-day objective. Certain agencies, however, continue to face challenges for meeting timeliness objectives. Out of the 14 agencies included in GAO's review, DOD, the Department of Energy, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency met the IRTPA 60-day timeliness objective in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010. Timeliness among the other executive branch agencies ranged from 62 to 154 days. IRTPA and the recent Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 also require annual reporting on the progress made towards meeting objectives, including a discussion of impediments related to timeliness and quality. While the Performance Accountability Council has taken steps to assist in implementation of reform efforts, it has not reported on the impediments to meeting timeliness objectives for specific agencies not yet achieving this goal. Executive branch agency officials stated that they often honor previously granted personnel security clearances (i.e., grant reciprocity), but the true extent of reciprocity is unknown because governmentwide metrics do not exist. IRTPA generally requires that all personnel security clearance investigations and determinations be accepted by all agencies, with limited exceptions when necessary for national security purposes. Agency officials stated that they grant reciprocity, but some noted that they have taken steps to obtain additional information before granting reciprocity. For example, officials stated that they may request copies of background investigation reports before they will honor a security clearance because information available in databases contain limited, summary level detail. Agency officials also reported that steps must be taken to conduct suitability determinations to ensure an applicant's character is appropriate for the position. The extent to which reciprocity is occurring is unknown because no metrics exist to consistently and comprehensively track reciprocity. Although there are no plans to develop a single, integrated database, steps have been taken to upgrade existing systems and increase information sharing. The Performance Accountability Council has opted to leverage existing systems in lieu of the single, integrated database required by IRTPA. Officials assert that a single database is not a viable option due to concerns related to privacy, security, and data ownership. Therefore, a single search capability of existing databases is being used to address the IRTPA requirement. For example, information from two primary databases can now be accessed from a single entry point, allowing executive branch agencies to share clearance information with one another. The Intelligence Community agencies share information through a separate database.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Performance Accountability Council collaborate with executive agencies to develop a plan to improve timeliness for those agencies not yet achieving the 60-day timeliness objective and metrics to track reciprocity. In commenting on this draft, the Performance Accountability Council concurred with all recommendations.