Since 2005, OMB’s  former Deputy Director for Management has taken several actions to  improve the security clearance process. 2.) In  accordance with Executive Order 13467, the Performance Accountability  Council is accountable to the President to achieve reform goals, drive  implementation, and oversee clearance reform. Initial Reform Efforts Have Partially Aligned with Key Practices but Lack a Fully Developed Strategic Framework with Outcome-Focused Performance Measures to Show Progress

Although initial reform efforts have, in part, aligned with established key  practices for organizational transformation, it is difficult to assess the  progress of reform or determine if corrective action is needed. Consistent with some of these key practices, the  Performance Accountability Council’s membership currently includes  senior executive leaders from 11 federal agencies. However, because the  reform efforts are missing important elements of a strategic framew that are also consistent with the Government Performance and Results of 1993 (GPRA), such as long-term goals with related outcome-fo cused  performance measures that show progress or identify obstacles to  progress and possible remedies, the reform effort is not able to  demonstrate incremental progress toward strategic goals, and the effort  runs the risk of losing momentum and governmentwide buy-in. Dedicate an implementation team to manage the transformation process. In designing a new personnel security clearance system, GPRA may be a  useful resource for both the team designing the system and the  congressional committees overseeing the design and implementation. Our prior work identified factors key to  reforming the clearance process, and IRTPA identified two additional  criteria, that are also essential to reforming the clearance process. These  factors include (1) a sound requirements determination process,               (2) governmentwide reciprocity, (3) the building of quality into every step  of the process, (4) consolidated information technology, and (5) the  identification and reporting of long-term funding requirements. Key  reports from the Joint Reform Team begin to address four of these  essential factors for reform, although they do not contain any information  on roles and responsibilities for the information technology strategy or  long-term funding requirements. As table 1 shows, the reform reports show that the Joint Reform Team is  in the process of addressing four out of five of these factors critical to  reforming the security clearance process:  Establish a sound requirement determination process: The key reform  reports begin to address the need for agencies to request the appropriate  number of clearances at the appropriate levels; however, the reports do  not provide a mechanism for ensuring that the number and level of  clearances being requested reflect the mission needs of the requesting  agencies. In addition, this strategy is  intended to establish a new end-to-end governmentwide capability to  support the reformed 7-step security and suitability process. Our prior work has stressed the  importance of defining clear roles and responsibilities before the  implementation of information processing systems. Because the Joint Reform Team has not established clear roles and  responsibilities for the agencies involved, it will be difficult to hold agency  leadership accountable and achieve a joint vision. Further, the April 2008,  December 2008, and March 2009 reform reports collectively are a step  forward. Recommendation for Executive Action

To further align the reform effort with key practices for organizational  transformations and better address the long-standing problems, we  recommend that the OMB Deputy Director of Management in the capacity  as Chair of the Performance Accountability Council, ensure that the  appropriate entities—such as the Performance Accountability Council, its  subcommittees, or the Joint Reform Team—take the following action:  Establish a strategic framework for the joint reform effort to include    a mission and strategic goals;    outcome-focused performance measures to continually evaluate the  progress of the reform effort toward meeting its goals and addressing long- standing problems with the security clearance process;    a formal, comprehensive communication strategy that includes  consistency of message and encourages two-way communication between  the Performance Accountability Council and key stakeholders;    clear roles and responsibilities for the implementation of the information  technology strategy, for example, by establishing memorandums of  understanding delineating the roles and responsibilities of all agencies  responsible for developing and implementing components of the  information technology strategy; and  long-term funding requirements for security clearance reform, including  estimates of potential cost savings from the reformed process, to be  provided to decision makers in Congress and the executive branch. Although timeliness was not the  focus of this review, we acknowledge this in our report. To determine the extent to which the Joint Reform Team’s key security  clearance reports address factors essential to reforming the security  clearance process, we collected and analyzed reports and documents  related to the reform effort produced by the Joint Reform Team and the  Performance Accountability Council. We reviewed key  legislation and executive policies, including the Intelligence Reform and  Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 and Executive Order 13467. High-Risk Series: An Update.
Why GAO Did This Study

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 (IRTPA), and since 2005 the Department of Defense's (DOD) clearance program has remained on GAO's high-risk list despite improvements in timeliness. In 2007, a Joint Reform Team, led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was established to improve the clearance process across the government. GAO was asked to review 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. To assess these objectives, GAO compared joint reform reports to key transformation practices and essential factors for reform.

What GAO Found

Initial joint reform efforts have, in part, aligned with key practices for organizational transformation, such as having committed leadership and a dedicated implementation team, but reports issued by the Joint Reform Team do not provide a strategic framework that contains important elements of successful transformation, including long-term goals with related outcome-focused performance measures to show progress, or identify obstacles to progress and possible remedies. To communicate plans of the reform efforts, the Joint Reform Team issued three reports, including an initial reform report in April 2008 that presented a new 7-step process design, a December 2008 update, and a March 2009 Enterprise Information Technology Strategy. Consistent with practices that GAO has previously identified, the executive branch established a Performance Accountability Council to achieve reform goals, drive implementation, and oversee the reform. Membership on this council currently includes senior executive leaders from 11 federal agencies. Further, an executive order designates OMB's Deputy Director for Management as the chair of this council. However, it is difficult to gauge progress of reform, or determine if corrective action is needed, because the council, through the Joint Reform Team, has not established a method for evaluating the progress of the reform efforts. In the absence of a strategic framework that is outcome focused, with clearly defined performance measures, the Joint Reform Team is not in a position to demonstrate to decision makers the extent of progress that it is making toward achieving its desired outcomes. The personnel security clearance joint reform reports that GAO reviewed collectively do begin to address essential factors for reforming the security clearance process, which represents positive steps. GAO's prior work and IRTPA identified several factors key to reforming the clearance process. These include (1) developing a sound requirements determination process, (2) engaging in governmentwide reciprocity, (3) building of quality into every step of the process, (4) consolidating information technology, and (5) identifying and reporting long-term funding requirements. However, the Joint Reform Team's informationtechnology strategy does not yet define roles and responsibilities for implementing a new automated capability which is intended to be a cross-agency collaborative initiative. GAO's prior work has stressed the importance of defining these roles and responsibilities when initiating cross-agency initiatives. Also, the joint reform reports do not contain any information on initiatives that will require funding, determine how much they will cost, or identify potential funding sources. Without long-term fundingrequirements, decision makers in both the executive and legislative branches will lack important information for comparing and prioritizing proposals for reforming the clearance processes. The reform effort's success will be dependent upon the extent to which the Joint Reform Team is able to fully address these key factors moving forward.