Agencies balk at clearance reciprocity

Industry, agencies affected by delays

Federal agencies are still reluctant to honor personnel security clearances granted by other agencies or organizations, six years after the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) put such recipriocity into law, according to the Government Accountability Office.

This lack of reciprocity leads to duplicative background checks and investigations, lengthening the time it takes to grant a clearance and affecting agencies and contractors who also frequently need clearances for employees, said Brenda Farrell, GAO’s director of defense capabilities and management, in GAO testimony prepared for the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Related coverage:

All clear on security clearances?

Security-cleared job seekers have new social network

IRTPA generally requires agencies to accept all valid security clearance investigations and determinations, with a few exceptions for national security purposes. However, GAO found it difficult to determine the extent to which agencies grant or deny prior clearance because there is no comprehensive system to track reciprocity.

But GAO did find that agencies can be reluctant to accept the results of other agencies' investigations, she said in the testimony. "Consequently, as we have previously reported, agencies are reluctant to be accountable for investigations and/or adjudications conducted by other agencies or organizations," she said.

GAO, which is Congress’ investigative arm, recommended that the Suitability and Security Clearance Performance Accountability Council -- an interagency group headed by the Office of Management and Budget –- devise metrics to track reciprocity and then report its findings to lawmakers.

Industry members concurred with the report’s findings, but also said more needs to be done to better personnel security clearance, including making the process more automated and strengthening reciprocity. Trey Hodgkins, senior vice president of national security and procurement policy at TechAmeria, said he thinks GAO characterizes the reciprocity situation as "rosier" than what industry is actually experiencing.

Reciprocity matters to contractors because the lack of it means a cleared employee cannot necessarily be assigned to a team working on a classified project without having to undergo a new investigation at the contractor's expense. And such reinvestigations are "horrifically costly," he said.

"Reciprocity is still the weak link in the process," Hodgkins said. "Many other phases in the process are far better, [such as] processing times."

Roger Jordan, government affairs director at the Professional Services Council, agreed that the lack of reciprocity is a concern, but said there are times when agencies might have a legitimate reason to conduct their own background checks.

Industry and government have generally done a good job in collaborating on efforts to speed up clearancs, he said. 

"The private sector has partnered with agencies on the security clearance process to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the investigations," Jordan said. "It’s one case where the partnership has demonstrated value."

In a separate study released in November, GAO credited the Defense Department, which processes the majority of security clearances, for the overall progress made in improving timeliness.

Since 2005, GAO has designated DOD’s clearance program as a "high-risk area." In fiscal 2007, the department took an average of 325 days to complete clearance decision for defense industry personnel. By fiscal 2010, DOD was meeting IRTPA's targets of 60 days for the fastest 90 percent of clearances.

DOD has issued new guidance an implemented some technology tools to help, but because the tools -– the Rapid Assessment of Incomplete Security Evaluations (RAISE) and the Review of Adjudication Documentation Accuracy and Rationales (RADAR) -– have not yet been fully implemented, GAO could not assess their impact.

About the Author

Alyah Khan is a staff writer covering IT policy.

Cyber. Covered.

Government Cyber Insider tracks the technologies, policies, threats and emerging solutions that shape the cybersecurity landscape.


Reader comments

Sat, Mar 5, 2011 Contractor

My contract switched a few times in one year so I was constantly getting new badges at one of HHS's agencies. It was insane how long each badge took (one year for my HSPD 12 badge) and yet I have a DoD Secret Clearance. These Security organizations are filled with overpromoted clerical types who have no clue and just thrive on process and rules which they make up. Try going to the National Archives -- you will be shocked by how many "clerical types" have to clear you before you get through the doors. We need one clearance organization and one set of clearance levels. Ridiculous.

Tue, Dec 7, 2010

If the PFC Manning mischief didn;t wake somebody up about the inadequacy of our current clearance process, nothing will

Tue, Dec 7, 2010 DHS Govt Employee DC

DHS is one of the very worst offenders in this area. There's an unjustifiable level of arrogance among DHS security people that they somehow are "better" at screening people than are their equivalents in DOD, FBI, CIA, etc. When all else fails, they hide behind the veil of "Suitability" which they run as a separate and parallel security clearance system. Think about it -- do we really need to determine separately and at additional cost if a person with an active TS or Secret clearance is actually "Suitable" to do government work?!? If not, why does the person have a high level government security clearance? Congress should withhold substantial funds from the management budgets of agencies guilty of refusing to comply with law, regulations and Presidential executive orders mandating clearance reciprocity. The agencies should also be required to replace their senior security executives. This willful disobedience of Congress and the President has gone on too long!

Tue, Dec 7, 2010

What is even more ridiculous is for a military office with a Top Secret clearance to retire on a Friday and come back to work on Monday at the same base as a civil servant and have to go through another background check. What changed over the weekend that he no longer is considered to have a clearance??

Mon, Dec 6, 2010

I totally agree with the 'not rocket science' statement. I've been railing against this for the past 30 years. It is absurd, and the biggest waste of taxpayers money imaginable, to have someone with a Top Secret clearance from a DOD agency, go through a separate clearance to join a civilian agency. Meanwhile the job sits vacant waiting for this ridiculous process.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group