United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1995 BACKGROUND

INVESTIGATIONS

Impediments to

Consolidating

Investigations and

Adjudicative Functions

GAO/NSIAD-95-101

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-260504 

March 24, 1995

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg

United States Senate

This report responds to your request that we review the federal processes

for conducting background investigations, deciding an individual’s

suitability for government employment, and determining whether an

individual meets established criteria for access to classified information.

More specifically, we collected and analyzed information on (1) the

feasibility of one central agency conducting all background investigations

or adjudicative functions, (2) federal agencies’ compliance with National

Security Directive 63 on single scope background investigations for top

secret clearances, and (3) costs of background investigations and number

of security clearances.

Background Title 5 of the U.S. Code, sections 3301 and 7301, authorizes the President

to establish standards for admission and conduct of federal employees.

Federal regulations authorize the Office of Personnel Management to

investigate and adjudicate the qualifications and suitability of such

employees consistent with protecting or promoting government efficiency

and the integrity of government service. These background investigations

are conducted to verify the qualifications of the applicant and to enforce

applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations. Under the Federal

Personnel Manual, the Office of Personnel Management delegated

suitability determinations to the responsible federal agencies.

Executive Orders 10450 and 12356, as amended, establish uniform

requirements for personnel security programs in the federal government.

They require agency heads to (1) classify federal positions for sensitivity in

relation to national security and (2) investigate each person as appropriate

based on the position’s level of access to national security information.

These background investigations are used to determine whether an

individual meets established criteria for access to classified information.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Executive Order 10450, as amended, directs the Office of Personnel

Management to provide investigative services to federal agencies except

those authorized to conduct their own investigations such as the

Departments of Defense and State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

and the Central Intelligence Agency. In addition, the Office of Personnel

Management has delegated to some agencies, such as the Department of

Commerce, authority to use departmental or private sector investigators.

The Office of Personnel Management retains oversight authority and the

right to rescind the delegations, and conducts about 30 percent of all

background investigations each year. Other investigative agencies conduct

about 70 percent of the background investigations for the federal

government. These agencies include the Departments of Defense, State,

and the Treasury; the Agency for International Development; the Central

Intelligence Agency; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the U.S.

Information Agency.

Results in Brief It may be feasible to have one central agency conduct all background

investigations and adjudicative functions. However, most of the nine key

agencies, accounting for more than 95 percent of the security clearances,

oppose consolidation; and several concerns and impediments would have

to be considered and resolved. Potential consolidation benefits include

cost savings, fewer oversight agencies, standardized operating procedures

and information systems, and more consistency in the application of

standards. However, consolidation also could result in less agency control

over the process, potentially reducing the extent to which an individual

agency’s requirements and priorities are met. For example, some agency

officials expressed concern that one central agency could not adequately

address their unique missions and needs, especially in terms of

adjudicating an individual’s suitability for employment or level of access to

classified information. In addition, studies by the Heritage Foundation and

the Joint Security Commission support consolidating investigative or

adjudicative functions for some federal agencies, but not for all. A study

by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center opposes consolidating

adjudicative functions in the Department of Defense. Also, the

consolidation would be inconsistent with the National Performance

Review report,1

 and federal statutes, executive orders, and government

regulations would have to be revised.

1

From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, report of the

National Performance Review, Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 7, 1993.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Our work shows that federal agencies are complying with the investigative

scope and standards of National Security Directive 63 on single scope

background investigations for top secret clearances. The purpose of the

directive was to eliminate redundant investigative practices for granting

individuals access to top secret or sensitive compartmental information.

Consistent with directive 63, some agencies have exceeded the minimum

standards by requiring more background information to address their

unique foreign relation and national security roles and missions. For

example, because of its Presidential protection mission, the U.S. Secret

Service conducts polygraph examinations of its agents and selected

employees.

In fiscal year 1993, executive branch agencies spent $326 million on

background investigations, $20 million of which went to private sector

investigators. Appendix I lists costs by agency. More than 3.2 million

people have federal security clearances, as shown in appendix II.

Agencies’ Opinions

About Consolidating

Investigative

Functions

Federal officials differ in their support for one central agency conducting

all background investigations. Two-thirds of the key agencies in the

process oppose consolidating investigative functions in one agency. Some

believe that costs would increase, and that timeliness and quality would

suffer under a consolidated system. Of the 51 agencies we polled,

37 percent do not support consolidating investigative functions, and

41 percent support the 1-agency concept. The remaining agencies are

neutral or did not respond. A study by the Heritage Foundation supports

consolidating investigative functions for selected federal agencies, but not

for defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies because they have

requirements that exceed those of other federal agencies. A study by the

Joint Security Commission recommended the Secretary of Defense and

the Director of Central Intelligence establish a joint investigative service,

but the recommendation was limited to the Defense Department and

intelligence agencies.

Most Key Agencies Oppose

Consolidation

Two-thirds of the key federal agencies involved in using background

investigations oppose consolidating investigative functions in one central

agency. Nine key agencies have investigative authority or grant large

numbers of security clearances, and represent more than 95 percent of the

security clearances granted to government and contractor employees

during fiscal year 1993. For a variety of reasons, six of these agencies

oppose consolidation of background investigations, as shown in table 1.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

For example, the Treasury Department stated that costs and timeliness

could suffer under a consolidated system. The Department of State

suggested that a centralized investigative system could cause less

responsive, lower-quality investigations. In contrast, the Departments of

Defense and Energy and the Office of Personnel Management support

consolidation, stating that it could decrease costs and improve timeliness

of background investigations. The Department of Defense added that

consolidating the Defense Department’s and the Office of Personnel

Management’s investigative functions could standardize the process and

improve the quality of the investigations. It also reported that while there

would be legal and technical issues associated with such a consolidation,

none would be insurmountable.

Table 1: Key Agencies’ Opinions

About Consolidating Investigative

Functions

Support consolidating investigative

functions

Executive department or agency No Yes

Agency for International Development X

Central Intelligence Agency X

Department of Defense X

Department of Energy X

Department of Justice X

Department of State X

Department of the Treasury X

Office of Personnel Management X

U.S. Information Agency X

In addition, four key agencies said that one central investigative agency

could not adequately address the many unique roles and missions found in

the federal government. For example, the Departments of State and the

Treasury said that a central agency could not adequately address their

unique roles and missions. Their explanations follow.

• The Department of State reported that no other federal agency has

investigators stationed worldwide that can conduct background

investigations overseas.2

 Its investigators have established liaisons with

foreign police and security authorities that ease records searches and

enhance overseas investigative capabilities. State Department

investigators support other diplomatic missions and functions abroad, as

well as conducting background investigations.

2

According to Department of Defense officials, the Defense Department also has investigators

stationed overseas that can conduct background investigations.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

• The Department of the Treasury said that its investigative requirements

vary to address specific issues related to each bureau’s unique missions.

For example, background investigations of (1) Internal Revenue Service

employees contain tax information and verification, (2) law enforcement

employees contain more stringent police checks and verification

procedures than investigations of other employees, and (3) financial

management employees contain more analysis of financial, credit, and tax

issues.

Slightly More Agencies

Support Consolidating

Investigative Functions

Than Oppose It

The number of federal agencies supporting the consolidation of

investigative functions is slightly more than the number of agencies

against consolidation, as shown in figure 1. Of the 51 federal agencies

polled, 21 (41 percent) agencies support consolidation, while 

19 (37 percent) agencies oppose it. Nine (18 percent) agencies are neutral

on the issue, and two did not respond.

Figure 1: Agencies’ Opinions About

Consolidating Investigative Functions Number of agencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agencies against consolidation

Agencies for

consolidation

Agencies that are neutral

No response

19

21

9

2

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Officials supporting consolidation said that it could save money and result

in more consistent application of standards. For example, the

Departments of Veterans Affairs and of Health and Human Services

believe consolidation could standardize the investigative process. The

Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and Transportation; the U.S.

Postal Service; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Federal

Communications Commission and others also support a single-agency

concept for background investigations.

In contrast, some officials believe consolidation could increase the costs,

delay timeliness, or decrease the quality of background investigations. For

example, the Department of Commerce said that the single-agency

concept could cause a monopolistic bureaucracy lacking incentives to

provide timely, good-quality investigations at low costs. The Peace Corps

reported that there was no proof that consolidation would increase

economies and efficiencies and the Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency stated that consolidation could create a large, unnecessary

bureaucracy.

Two Studies Support

Consolidation for Some

Agencies, but Not for All

Studies by the Heritage Foundation and the Joint Security Commission

support consolidation of investigative functions for selected federal

agencies, but not for all.

In 1983, the Heritage Foundation issued a report on the federal personnel

security program.3

 The foundation concluded that the advantages of

consolidating background investigations outweigh the disadvantages,

except for the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and

law enforcement agencies, all of which have requirements that differ and

exceed those of other federal agencies. The report stated that

consolidating investigative functions could save money, enhance the

quality of investigations, maintain high standards for investigators, and

improve the application of uniform investigative standards.

On February 28, 1994, the Joint Security Commission issued a report

describing the threats to the nation’s security and proposing new

personnel security strategies for the Department of Defense and

intelligence agencies.4

 The commission recommended the Secretary of

Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence establish a joint

3

Screening Federal Employees: A Neglected Security Priority, The Heritage Foundation, 1983.

4

Redefining Security, report to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, Joint

Security Commission, Feb. 28, 1994.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

investigative service to standardize background investigations, reduce

costs, and improve timeliness. It also reported that contracting for

investigations in special circumstances, such as priority cases, could

enhance competitiveness, lower costs, and prevent backlogs and delays.

However, the review was limited only to the Department of Defense and

intelligence agencies.

Agencies’ Opinions

About Consolidating

Adjudicative

Functions

All but one key agency oppose consolidating adjudicative functions. In

addition, most of the federal agencies we polled oppose consolidating

adjudicative functions in one agency, while 22 percent support

consolidation. The remaining agencies are neutral on the issue or did not

respond. The studies by the Heritage Foundation and the Joint Security

Commission support consolidating adjudicative functions for some federal

agencies, but not for all. A study by the Defense Personnel Security

Research Center opposes consolidating adjudicative functions in the

Department of Defense.

Most Key Agencies Oppose

Consolidation

For a variety of reasons, eight of the nine key federal agencies oppose

consolidating adjudicative functions in one central agency. (See table 2.)

Officials expressed concern that one agency could not adequately

(1) adjudicate all federal suitability determinations and security clearances

nor (2) address the various agencies’ missions and needs in the

adjudicative process. Some also express concerns that consolidation could

increase costs and delay the adjudication process. In contrast, the

Department of Energy supports consolidation, stating that it could

decrease costs and improve timeliness of the process.

Table 2: Key Agencies’ Opinions

About Consolidating Adjudicative

Functions

Support consolidating adjudicative

functions

Executive department or agency No Yes

Agency for International Development X

Central Intelligence Agency X

Department of Defense X

Department of Energy X

Department of Justice X

Department of State X

Department of the Treasury X

Office of Personnel Management X

U.S. Information Agency X

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Most Agencies Oppose

Consolidating Adjudicative

Functions

As shown in figure 2, 34 (67 percent) federal agencies of the 51 agencies

polled oppose consolidating adjudicative functions and procedures.

Officials expressed concern that one agency could not adequately

adjudicate all federal suitability determinations and classified information

access levels. For example, the Department of Education and the

Environmental Protection Agency said that deciding suitability is an

integral part of their personnel systems. The Department of Commerce

and the National Archives and Records Administration said that

consolidating the adjudication function could make it more difficult to

defend denials and revocations of security clearances. Eleven (22 percent)

agencies support consolidation, some responding that it could save money

and standardize the process. Four (8 percent) agencies are neutral on

consolidation, and two did not respond.

Figure 2: Agencies’ Opinions About

Consolidating Adjudicative Functions Number of agencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agencies against consolidation

Agencies for

consolidation

Agencies that are neutral

No response

34

11

4

2

Studies Vary in Their

Support for Consolidating

Adjudicative Functions

Studies by the Heritage Foundation, the Defense Personnel Security

Research Center, and the Joint Security Commission vary in their support

for consolidating adjudicative functions. The Heritage Foundation

supported consolidating adjudicative functions for some federal agencies,

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

but not for defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies because

they have requirements that exceed those of other federal agencies. A

study by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center opposed

consolidating adjudicative functions in the Department of Defense. The

Joint Security Commission recommended consolidating adjudicative

functions for most of the Defense Department, but exempted the National

Security Agency from the consolidation because of its unique hiring

practices.

The 1983 Heritage Foundation report concluded that the advantages of

consolidating adjudicative functions outweigh the disadvantages for most

federal agencies. The foundation reported that consolidating adjudicative

functions for most agencies could save money, improve the quality of the

adjudications, maintain high standards for adjudicators, and provide for

uniform standards. However, the Heritage Foundation also concluded that

the Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement

agencies have requirements that differ and exceed those of other federal

agencies and should continue to operate their own adjudication programs.

In October 1991, the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education

Center reported on the potential benefits of consolidating the Defense

Department’s adjudication facilities.5

 The center concluded that the

increased risks to personnel security from consolidation outweigh the

potential benefits. The center reported that one central adjudication

agency could standardize operating procedures and information systems

and result in more consistent application of standards. However, the

center also concluded that consolidation could result in less agency

control over the process, potentially reducing the extent to which any

individual agency’s requirements and priorities are met.

The Joint Security Commission recommended consolidation of

adjudicative functions for the Department of Defense, except for the

National Security Agency. According to the commission, a well-designed

central agency could improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and

consistency of the department’s adjudicative system. However, the

commission reported that the National Security Agency should be exempt

from the consolidation because of its unique hiring practices. The

commission’s review was limited only to the Defense Department and

intelligence agencies.

5

Consolidation of Personnel Security Adjudication in DOD, Defense Personnel Security Research and

Education Center, Oct. 1991.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Other Impediments to

Consolidating

Investigative and

Adjudicative

Functions

The consolidation of background investigations and adjudicative functions

would be inconsistent with the National Performance Review report and

would require federal statutes, executive orders, and government

regulations to be revised.

The Departments of Commerce, Education, and the Treasury and the

Office of Management and Budget believe a single-agency concept

counters the National Performance Review proposal to decentralize

federal personnel policy and to give managers more authority to hire,

promote, reward, and terminate employees. For example, the National

Performance Review recommended giving federal agencies authority to

recruit potential employees and to abolish the standard job application

form and central job registers. In addition, it reported that agencies should

be permitted to conduct their own background investigations of job

applicants. The Office of Personnel Management has partially

implemented the recommendations. For example, the office has actions

under way to revise the Federal Personnel Manual and has abolished the

standard job application form and its central registers for entry-level

professionals and administrative positions. As of December 31, 1994, no

action had occurred allowing other federal agencies to conduct their own

background investigations.

Federal statutes, executive orders, and regulations would have to be

revised to allow for the consolidation of security investigations and related

functions. For example, the Congress would have to amend the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to replace the requirement that the Office

of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

conduct background investigations for the Energy Department and its

contractors and licensees; and the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of

1961, as amended, to revise the investigative requirements for the Arms

Control and Disarmament Agency and its contractors. The President

would have to revise Executive Orders 10450 and 12356, as amended, to

designate one central agency for all background investigations and related

functions. In addition, federal agencies would have to revise their

regulations and manuals to reflect the one-agency concept. We did not

estimate the costs to make these revisions.

Federal Agencies

Comply With National

Security Directive 63

Federal executive agencies are meeting the requirements of National

Security Directive 63 on single-scope background investigations for top

secret clearances. Based on our review, agencies’ internal standards and

investigative results comply with the requirements established in the

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

directive. The purpose of the directive is to eliminate redundant and costly

investigative practices employed throughout the executive branch. It

establishes the minimum investigative scope and standards for top secret

security clearances. The investigation consists of a personnel subject

interview; law enforcement and credit checks; public records searches;

verification of educational degree(s); and interviews with people

knowledgeable of the subject’s employment, residence, activities, and

lifestyle. The investigation covers the subject’s background during the

previous 10 years.

Directive 63 also allows agencies to exceed the standards to resolve or

address issues and requirements unique to individual agencies. Some

agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security

Agency, and the Treasury Department, have exceeded the standards to

address their unique foreign relation and national security roles and

missions. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National

Security Agency use full-scope polygraphs to screen employment

applicants, because their employees have access to a broad range of

classified national security information. In addition, because of its

presidential protection mission, the U.S. Secret Service conducts

polygraph examinations of its agents and selected employees.

Costs of

Investigations and

Types of Security

Clearances

In March 1994, we issued correspondence to the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Defense, Senate Committee on Appropriations, on the

costs of background investigations and types of security clearances.6

 Since

our correspondence, executive agencies reported to us that they spent an

additional $1 million, for a total of $326 million, on background

investigations in fiscal year 1993. More than $20 million went to private

sector investigators. In addition, as shown in table 3, more than 3.2 million

people have federal security clearances. Executive federal employees and

military personnel account for almost 2.4 million clearances, and

government contractors’ employees account for 852,711 clearances. The

totals do not include information from the Central Intelligence Agency.

6

Personnel Security Investigations (GAO/NSIAD-94-135R, Mar. 4, 1994).

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

Table 3: Number of Executive Federal

and Contractor Employees With

Security Clearances

Figures in thousands

Clearance level

Federal employees,

including military

Contractor

employees Total

Top secret 535 233 768

Secret 1,719 580 2,299

Confidential 114 40 154

Total 2,368 853 3,221

Note: In addition to these clearance levels, agencies also granted 256,399 federal and contractor

employees access to Sensitive Compartmental Information.

Source: Executive agencies’ responses to our request for personnel data.

Scope and

Methodology

To assess the feasibility of consolidating background investigations or

adjudicative functions in 1 central agency, we sent letters, dated May 31,

1994, to 51 federal agencies, offices, boards, commissions, and councils

requesting their opinions on the single-agency concept and related legal

issues. We received 45 written responses that included opinions from all

except 2 of the 51 organizations. For example, the General Services

Administration responded for the Board for International Broadcasting

and the Marine Mammal Commission. We focused our analysis on

responses from nine key departments and agencies that have investigative

authority or grant large numbers of security clearances. They represent

more than 95 percent of the security clearances granted to government

and contractor employees during fiscal year 1993.7

 In addition, we

interviewed and obtained information from officials of the Departments of

Defense, Energy, Justice, State, and the Treasury; the Office of Personnel

Management; and other federal agencies. We also collected and analyzed

studies, policies, directives, and statutes on background investigations,

adjudication procedures, and security clearances. We did not determine

whether there would be any potential cost savings from consolidating

background investigations or adjudicative functions in one agency.

To determine the level of compliance with National Security Directive 63,

we compared agencies’ internal standards and investigative results with

the requirements established in the directive. To identify the costs and

types of background investigations and security clearances, we collected

and analyzed pertinent information from the organizations listed in

7

These agencies are the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, State, and the Treasury; the Office of

Personnel Management; the Agency for International Development; the Central Intelligence Agency;

and the U.S. Information Agency.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
B-260504 

appendixes I and II. The Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to

our request for cost and security clearance data.

We conducted our review for this report from March 1994 to

December 1994 according to generally accepted government auditing

standards. As requested, we did not obtain official agency comments. We

provided a fact sheet summarizing this report to the nine key agencies in

the process and included their comments where appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce this report’s contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will

send copies to the Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on

Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the House

Committee on National Security; the Secretary of Defense; the Directors of

the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel

Management; and other interested parties. We will make copies available

to others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Donna M. Heivilin

Director, Defense Management

 and NASA Issues

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Cost to Conduct

Background

Investigations and

Related Functions in

Fiscal Year 1993

16

Appendix II 

Clearance Levels for

Federal, Military, and

Contractor Employees

in Fiscal Year 1993

18

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

20

Tables Table 1: Key Agencies’ Opinions About Consolidating

Investigative Functions

4

Table 2: Key Agencies’ Opinions About Consolidating

Adjudicative Functions

7

Table 3: Number of Executive Federal and Contractor Employees

with Security Clearances

12

Figures Figure 1: Agencies’ Opinions About Consolidating Investigative

Functions

5

Figure 2: Agencies’ Opinions About Consolidating Adjudicative

Functions

8

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Appendix I 

Cost to Conduct Background Investigations

and Related Functions in Fiscal Year 1993

Cost

Dollars in thousands

Executive agency or office In-house Reimbursementa Contract Total

Agency for International Development $686 $31 $644 $1,361

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 3 159 162

Board for International Broadcasting 17 2 19

Central Intelligence Agencyb

Council of Economic Advisers 0

Department of Agriculture 177 1,562 1,739

Department of Commerce 90 965 567 1,622

Department of Defense 180,565 9,957 2,120 192,642

Department of Education 5 5

Department of Energy 5,116 57,289 6,663 69,068

Department of Health and Human Services 53 348 401

Department of Housing and Urban Development 168 675 843

Department of the Interior 2 2

Department of Justice 11,349 23,142 3,987 38,478

Department of Labor 39 33 72

Department of State 2,055 151 4,190 6,396

Department of Transportation 1,885 1,226 3,111

Department of the Treasury 473 398 781 1,652

Department of Veterans Affairs 309 309

Environmental Protection Agency 320 678 998

Export-Import Bank 87 87

Farm Credit Administration 8 36 44

Federal Communications Commission 30 16 46

Federal Emergency Management Agency 382 382

Federal Maritime Commissionc 0

Federal Reserve System 104 104

General Services Administration 249 307 556

International Trade Commission 23 23

Interstate Commerce Commission 44 44

Marine Mammal Commission 17 1 18

Merit Systems Protection Board 1 6 7

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 785 969 625 2,379

National Archives and Records Administration 125 262 387

National Science Foundation 35 35

National Security Council 0

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 214 526 27 767

(continued)

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Appendix I 

Cost to Conduct Background Investigations

and Related Functions in Fiscal Year 1993

Cost

Dollars in thousands

Executive agency or office In-house Reimbursementa Contract Total

Office of Administration 83 83

Office of Management and Budget 1 1

Office of Personnel Management 35 35

Office of Science and Technology Policy 0

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 8 8

Office of the Vice President 0

Overseas Private Investment Corporationd

Peace Corps 48 14 128 190

Securities and Exchange Commission 24 24

Selective Service Systemc 0

Small Business Administration 69 69

Tennessee Valley Authority 1 6 7

U.S. Information Agency 1,205 157 465 1,827

U.S. Postal Service 77 3 80

Total $205,875 $100,011 $20,197 $326,083

aReimbursement cost to other federal agencies.

bDid not provide cost data.

cCost is less than $500.

dCost is included in the Agency for International Development’s total.

Source: Executive agencies’ responses to our request for cost data. Not all costs are actual,

some agencies provided estimates only.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Appendix II 

Clearance Levels for Federal, Military, and

Contractor Employees in Fiscal Year 1993

Executive agency or office Top secret Secret Confidential Total

Agency for International Development 2,402 906 3,308

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 255 255

Board for International Broadcasting 14 14

Central Intelligence Agencya

Council of Economic Advisers 23 23

Department of Agriculture 848 1,358 461 2,667

Department of Commerce 850 4,440 90 5,380

Department of Defense 449,506 1,652,360 111,806 2,213,672

Department of Education 39 15 6 60

Department of Energy 7,862 1,458 9,320

Department of Health and Human Services 300 385 40 725

Department of Housing and Urban Development 83 128 211

Department of the Interior 1,110 500 1,610

Department of Justice 34,207 6,034 236 40,477

Department of Labor 270 160 430

Department of State 16,154 773 16,927

Department of Transportation 2,569 24,041 297 26,907

Department of the Treasury 9,199 6,839 147 16,185

Department of Veterans Affairs 595 1,232 1,827

Environmental Protection Agency 164 860 1,024

Export-Import Bank 16 240 256

Farm Credit Administration 2 2 4

Federal Communications Commission 127 260 387

Federal Emergency Management Agency 1,557 355 1,912

Federal Maritime Commission 3 54 57

Federal Reserve System 113 38 151

General Services Administration 1,210 734 8 1,952

International Trade Commission 8 440 448

Interstate Commerce Commission 11 44 55

Marine Mammal Commission 2 6 8

Merit Systems Protection Board 49 14 63

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 483 5,759 55 6,297

National Archives and Records Administration 507 114 2 623

National Science Foundation 10 118 128

National Security Council 15 15

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,841 1,734 3,575

Office of Administration 82 53 2 137

Office of Management and Budget 181 273 454

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Appendix II 

Clearance Levels for Federal, Military, and

Contractor Employees in Fiscal Year 1993

Executive agency or office Top secret Secret Confidential Total

Office of Personnel Management 43 133 176

Office of Science and Technology Policy 34 2 36

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 73 43 12 128

Office of the Vice President 32 8 40

Overseas Private Investment Corporationb

Peace Corps 297 128 425

Securities and Exchange Commission 13 30 43

Selective Service System 9 15 4 28

Small Business Administration 33 205 1 239

Tennessee Valley Authority 22 199 10 231

U.S. Information Agency 1,896 1,193 408 3,497

U.S. Postal Service 4,955 4,955

Subtotal 535,119 1,718,638 113,585 2,367,342

Contractorc 232,970 580,149 39,592 852,711

Total 768,089 2,298,787 153,177 3,220,053

Note: In addition to these clearance levels, agencies granted 256,399 federal and contractor

employees access to Sensitive Compartmental Information. Some agencies also grant L and Q

access authorizations, which are not included in this table.

aDid not provide data on clearance levels.

bClearance levels are included in the Agency for International Development’s total.

cIncludes totals for all executive agencies.

Source: Executive agencies’ responses to our request for personnel data. Not all figures are

actual, some agencies provided estimates only.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

David R. Warren, Associate Director

Thomas J. Howard, Assistant Director

Leo G. Clarke III, Evaluator-in-Charge

Claude T. Adrien, Evaluator

Jacqueline E. Snead, Evaluator

(709035) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-101 Background Investigations