Multiple executive-branch agencies are responsible for different phases in the federal government’s personnel security clearance process. In 2008, the Director of National Intelligence, for example, was designated Security Executive Agent by Executive Order 13467 and, in this capacity, is responsible for developing uniform and consistent policies and procedures to ensure the effective, efficient, and timely completion of background investigations and adjudications relating to determinations of eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. In turn, requesting executive branch agencies determine which positions—military, civilian, or private-industry contractors—require access to classified information and, therefore, which people must apply for and undergo a security clearance investigation. Investigators—often contractors—from Federal Investigative Services within the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conduct these investigations for most of the federal government using federal investigative standards and OPM internal guidance as criteria for collecting background information on applicants. Adjudicators from requesting agencies, such as DOD, use the information contained in the resulting OPM investigative reports and consider federal adjudicative guidelines to determine whether an applicant is eligible for a personnel security clearance. DOD is OPM’s largest customer, and its Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) is responsible for developing, coordinating, and overseeing the implementation of DOD policy, programs, and guidance for personnel, physical, industrial, information, operations, chemical/biological, and DOD Special Access Program security. Additionally, the Defense Security Service, under the authority and direction and control of USD(I), manages and administers the DOD portion of the National Industrial Security Program for the DOD components and other federal services by agreement, as well as providing security education and training, among other things. Pub. L. No. 108-458 (2004) (relevant sections codified at 50 U.S.C. § 435b). Council. Under the executive order, this council is accountable to the President for driving implementation of the reform effort, including ensuring the alignment of security and suitability processes, holding agencies accountable for implementation, and establishing goals and metrics for progress. The order also appointed the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget as the chair of the council and designated the Director of National Intelligence as the Security Executive Agent and the Director of OPM as the Suitability Executive Agent. We have previously reported that, to safeguard classified data and manage costs, agencies need an effective process to determine whether positions require a clearance and, if so, at what level. Last year we found, however, that the Director of National Intelligence, as Security Executive Agent, has not provided agencies clearly defined policies and procedures to consistently determine if a civilian position requires a security clearance.for, among other things, developing uniform and consistent policies and procedures to ensure the effective, efficient, and timely completion of background investigations and adjudications relating to determinations of eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, and gives the Director authority to issue guidance to agency heads to ensure uniformity in processes relating to those determinations. Further, the Director also has not established guidance to require agencies to review and revise or validate existing federal civilian Executive Order 13467 assigns the Director responsibility position designations. Executive Order 12968certain exceptions, eligibility for access to classified information shall only be requested and granted on the basis of a demonstrated, foreseeable need for access, and the number of employees that each agency determines is eligible for access to classified information shall be kept to the minimum required. The order also states that access to classified information shall be terminated when an employee no longer has a need for access, and prohibits requesting or approving eligibility for access in excess of the actual requirements. Without such requirements, executive branch agencies may be hiring and budgeting for initial and periodic security clearance investigations using position descriptions and security clearance requirements that no longer reflect national security needs. says that, subject to In our July 2012 report, we found that Department of Homeland Security and DOD components’ officials were aware of the need to keep the number of security clearances to a minimum, but were not always required to conduct periodic reviews and validations of the security clearance needs of existing positions. Overdesignating positions results in significant cost implications, given that the fiscal year 2012 base price for a top secret clearance investigation conducted by OPM was $4,005, while the base price of a secret clearance was $260. Conversely, underdesignating positions could lead to security risks. In the absence of guidance to determine if a position requires a security clearance, agencies are using a tool that OPM designed to determine the sensitivity and risk levels of civilian positions which, in turn, inform the type of investigation needed. OPM audits, however, found inconsistency in these position designations, and some agencies described problems in implementing OPM’s tool. In an April 2012 audit, OPM reviewed the sensitivity levels of 39 positions in an agency within DOD and reached different conclusions than the agency for 26 of them. Problems exist, in part, because OPM and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not collaborate on the development of the position designation tool, and because their roles for suitability—consideration of character and conduct for federal employment—and security clearance reform are still evolving. In our July 2012 report, we concluded that without guidance from the Director of National Intelligence, and without collaboration between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and OPM in future revisions to the tool, executive branch agencies will continue to risk making security clearance determinations that are inconsistent or at improper levels. In July 2012, we recommended, among other things, that the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of OPM and other executive branch agencies as appropriate, issue clearly defined policy and procedures for federal agencies to follow when determining if federal civilian positions require a security clearance. We also recommended that the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of OPM and other executive branch agencies as appropriate, issue guidance to require executive branch agencies to periodically review and revise or validate the designation of all federal civilian positions. The Director of National Intelligence concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement them. We have emphasized—since the late 1990s—a need to build quality and quality monitoring throughout the clearance process to promote oversight and positive outcomes, such as honoring reciprocity. Executive branch efforts have emphasized timeliness, but efforts to develop and implement metrics for measuring the quality of investigations have not included goals with related outcome focused measures to show progress or identify obstacles to progress and possible remedies. Furthermore, our recent reviews of OPM’s investigations show reasons for continuing concern. For example, in May 2009 we reported that, with respect to initial top secret clearances adjudicated in July 2008, documentation was incomplete for most OPM investigative reports. We independently estimated that 87 percent of about 3,500 investigative reports that DOD adjudicators used to make clearance decision were missing required documentation. We recommended that the Director of OPM direct the Associate Director of OPM’s Federal Investigative Services Division to measure the frequency with which its investigative reports meet federal investigative standards in order to improve the completeness—that is, quality—of future investigation documentation. As of March 2013, however, OPM had not implemented our recommendation to measure how frequently investigative reports meet federal investigative standards. Instead, OPM continues to assess the quality of investigations based on voluntary reporting from customer agencies. Specifically, OPM tracks investigations that are (1) returned for rework from the requesting agency, (2) identified as deficient using a web-based survey, and (3) identified as deficient through adjudicator calls to OPM’s quality hotline. In our past work, we have noted that the number of investigations returned for rework is not by itself a valid indicator of the quality of investigative work because adjudication officials have been reluctant to return incomplete investigations in anticipation of delays that would impact timeliness. Further, relying on agencies to voluntarily provide information on investigation quality may not reflect the quality of OPM’s total investigation workload. In February 2011, we noted that one of OPM’s customer agencies, DOD, had developed and implemented a tool known as Rapid Assessment of Incomplete Security Evaluations to monitor the quality of investigations completed by OPM. In that report, we noted that leaders of the reform effort had provided congressional members and executive branch agencies with metrics assessing quality and other aspects of the clearance process. Although the Rapid Assessment of Incomplete Security Evaluations was one tool the reform team members planned to use for measuring quality, according to an OPM official, OPM chose not to use this tool. Instead, OPM opted to develop another tool but has not provided details on the tool including estimated timeframes for its development and implementation. Since 2008, we have highlighted the importance of the executive branch enhancing efficiency and managing costs related to security clearance reform efforts. Government-wide suitability and personnel security clearance reform efforts have not yet focused on identifying potential cost savings, even though the stated mission of these efforts includes improving cost savings. For example, in 2008, we noted that one of the key factors to consider in current and future reform efforts was the long- term funding requirements. Further, in 2009, we found that reform-related reports issued in 2008 did not detail which reform objectives require funding, how much they will cost, or where funding will come from.Finally, the reports did not estimate potential cost savings resulting from these reform efforts. While the Performance Accountability Council has a stated goal regarding cost savings, it has not provided the executive branch with guidance on opportunities for achieving efficiencies in managing personnel security clearances. For example, OPM’s investigation process—which represents just a portion of the security clearance process and had significant costs—has not been studied for process efficiencies or cost savings. In February 2012, we reported that OPM received over $1 billion to conduct more than 2 million background investigations (suitability determinations and personnel security clearances) for government employees in fiscal year 2011.