Since 1997, federal agencies have followed a common set of personnel security investigative standards and adjudicative guidelines for determining whether servicemembers, federal workers, private industry personnel, and others are eligible to receive security clearances. Security clearances are required for access to certain national security information, which is classified at one of three levels: top secret, secret, or confidential. The level of classification denotes the degree of protection required for information and the amount of damage that unauthorized disclosure could reasonably cause to national security. The degrees of expected damage that unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause are “exceptionally grave damage” for top secret information, “serious damage” for secret information, and “damage” for confidential information. We have previously reported problems—including significant delays in processing clearances—associated with DOD’s security clearance processes, and in 2005, 2007, and again in 2009, we identified not only delays in completing the end-to-end clearance processing but also incomplete investigative and adjudicative reports. More recently, we reported that although the executive branch has met current IRTPA timeliness requirements—under which adjudicative agencies are to make a determination on at least 80 percent of all applications for a security clearance within 120 days, on average, after the date of receipt of the application—executive branch reports to Congress do not capture the full range of time that OPM and DOD took to make clearance determinations. Further, we found that those reports provided decision makers little information on quality, and that the majority of OPM-provided investigative reports, which DOD adjudicators (agency employees who decide whether to grant a clearance to an applicant based on the investigation and other information) used to grant initial top secret clearances in July 2008, were missing required documentation. In June 2005, the President issued an executive order as part of the administration’s efforts to improve the security clearance process and to implement the statutory clearance requirements in IRTPA. This order tasked the Director of OMB with a variety of functions in order to ensure that agency processes relating to determining eligibility for access to classified national security information were appropriately uniform, centralized, efficient, effective, timely, and reciprocal. Since 2005, OMB’s former Deputy Director for Management has taken several actions to improve the security clearance process. These actions include establishing an interagency working group to improve the reciprocal acceptance of clearances issued by other agencies and taking a lead role in preparing a November 2005 plan to improve the timeliness of personnel security clearance processes governmentwide. The November 2005 plan included quarterly timeliness goals for initial investigations of clearances from November 2005 through December 2006 and an action plan for improving the security clearance process to meet the requirements of IRTPA, such as timeliness, reciprocity, and the establishment of an integrated database to track investigative and adjudicative information. The Joint Reform Team submitted its first reform plan to the President on April 30, 2008; the plan presented a proposed transformed security clearance and suitability process. (See fig. 2.) The plan also presented a new 7-step process for determining eligibility: (1) validating the need for security or suitability investigation and adjudication, (2) an electronic application, (3) automated records checks, (4) electronic adjudication, (5) an enhanced subject interview, (6) an expandable focused investigation, and (7) continuous evaluation of persons with security clearances. The key differences between this design and the current process are more extensive use of information technology from beginning to end and a more customized approach to investigations through in-depth personal interviews and targeted use of human investigative resources. The Joint Reform Team’s April 2008 plan also proposed a new executive branch governance structure for coordinating security clearance and suitability decisions, and on June 30, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13467 that established the Performance Accountability Council. 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. The council comprises representatives from 11 executive agencies. (See fig. 3.) The Joint Reform Team—composed of staff from OPM, DOD, and ODNI—is not formally part of the governance structure established by Executive Order 13467 but in practice reports to the Performance Accountability Council and is responsible for policy, process, and information technology in accordance with the council’s charter. In addition, two subcommittees at the working level also report to the council. The Training Subcommittee is developing training standards that will be used to help align security and suitability processes, and the Performance Measurement and Management Subcommittee is developing performance metrics that the council will use to assess the timeliness and quality of the investigative and adjudicative processes, among other things. Following implementation of the performance metrics, subcommittee members will continue to assess the metrics and update them to inform policymakers on the reform process. 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. In September 2002, GAO convened a forum to identify and discuss practices and lessons learned from major private and public sector organizational mergers, acquisitions, and transformations that can serve as a guide as federal agencies transform their processes in response to governance challenges. 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. Planning and implementing a large-scale transformation such as reforming the personnel security clearance process is not a simple endeavor and requires the concentrated efforts of both leadership and employees across government. Participants in a forum GAO convened in 2002 generally agreed on a number of practices that can serve as a guide for organizational mergers, acquisitions, and transformations, including committed leadership, a mission with strategic goals, implementation goals and a timeline, and a formal communication strategy. These key practices, among others, are as follows: Ensure that top leadership drives the transformation. Leadership must set the direction, pace, and tone and provide a clear, consistent rationale that brings everyone together behind a single mission. Dedicate an implementation team to manage the transformation process. A strong and stable team is important to ensure that the transformation receives the needed attention to be sustained and successful. Establish a coherent mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the transformation. Together, these define the culture and serve as a vehicle for employees to unite and rally around. Focus on a key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the transformation. A clear set of principles and priorities serves as a framework to help the organization create a new culture and drive employee behaviors. Use the performance management system to define responsibility and ensure accountability for change. This system shows how team, unit, and individual performance can contribute to overall organizational results. Set implementation goals and a timeline to build momentum and show progress from day one. Goals and a timeline are essential because the transformation could take years to complete. Establish a communication strategy to create shared expectations and report related progress. The strategy must reach out to employees, customers, and stakeholders and engage them in a two-way exchange. Involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the transformation. Employee involvement strengthens the process and allows employees to share their experiences and shape policies. High-level leaders—including senior officials from OMB, DOD, OPM, ODNI, and seven other federal agencies—have made a commitment to the governmentwide security clearance reform efforts. In a February 2008 memo, the President directed OMB, OPM, ODNI, and DOD to submit an initial security clearance reform proposal by April 30, 2008. Executive Order 13467 further demonstrated leadership commitment to security clearance reform by creating a governance structure—the Performance Accountability Council. The council is accountable to the President to achieve the goals of reform stated in Executive Order 13467, drive implementation, and sustain reform momentum. The council’s governance structure is permanent, unless it is altered by a new executive order or law. The Chair of the council provides direction and has control over its functions and the authority to make final decisions and appoint members. The council has met monthly since July 2008 to share information and make decisions to drive the reform process, although, as of this report’s issue date, the chair position, which is held by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management, has remained vacant since January 2008, and no presidential appointee has yet been named. Without continued committed leadership and sustained support from the new administration, it will be difficult to complete the reform efforts and sustain the interagency collaboration that is needed to move this effort forward. In addition to high-level leadership, the reform effort has benefited from a dedicated implementation team to manage the transformation process from the beginning. The Joint Reform Team—composed of staff from multiple agencies, including OMB, DOD, OPM, and ODNI—is a dedicated team that works full-time on security clearance reform. The Joint Reform Team is responsible for day-to-day management of the reform effort, and it produces the key reports to the President that update the status of the efforts and lay out future plans, such as the April and December 2008 reports and the March 2009 information technology strategy report. Within the reform team, four senior executives—one from each agency—guide the effort to streamline and modernize the security clearance process.