Report: Administration has mixed record on clearances
The Bush administration has improved the efficiency of managing
security clearances, but the process remains cumbersome, according to a
new report from chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
The administration met three requirements,
partially met two requirements and failed to meet two requirements
outlined under Title III of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, according to the report from Rep. Silvestre
Reyes (D-Texas).
The report, titled “Security Clearance Reform —
Upgrading the Gateway to the National Security Community,” was
published on the Web Dec. 1 by the Federation of American Scientists.
One
of the legislation’s key recommendations was centralized management for
security clearances, but the government has had mixed progress on that
front, the report states.
Following the legislation’s passage,
the Office of Personnel Management assumed responsibility in 2005 for
the majority of the security clearance investigations. In April, the
administration announced a change to that structure, designating a
collaborative effort consisting of representatives from the Defense
Department, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and OPM.
“While
both the old and new structures seem to meet the law's requirements,
the first structure did not demonstrate concrete results toward several
of the [law’s] requirements,” the report states. “While it is too early
to evaluate the success of the new structure, it appears that steps
have been taken to improve the system.”
The administration has
not the law’s standard for an integrated, secure database, Reyes wrote.
The databases of OPM and DOD have been linked, but they do not include
data about clearances not investigated by OPM, such as from the
intelligence communit or Homeland Security and State departments.
Reyes also cited partial progress on the requirement that a single agency be responsible for clearance investigations.
Other findings regarding the progress under the legislation include:
* The standard for interagency reciprocity has not been met.
* The evaluation of available technologies has been conducted.
* The interim standards for timeliness 2006 were met.
* Annual reporting requirements were met.
About the Author
Alice Lipowicz is a staff writer covering government 2.0, homeland security and other IT policies for Federal Computer Week. Follow her on Twitter: @AliceLipowicz.