Appendix A-4: Investigations Service

FY 2000 Performance Report
Goal & Performance Indicators Checklist

Forward | Back | Table of Contents | OPM Home Page

OPM STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL I

PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE REQUIRED FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.

IS Goal 1 -- M

Only suitable applicants, appointees, and employees are hired for, and remain in, the Federal competitive service.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal I since ensuring suitability is a basic recruitment component. As the Governmentwide leader for suitability policy, OPM plays a vital role in promoting the efficiency and integrity of the Federal service. There are six indicators to assess whether or not this goal is achieved. The first is the most critical indicator to help us assess if we are meeting our goal. We met this goal by carrying out suitability casework for agencies and providing them policy guidance.

M Carry out suitability casework for agencies. [Critical indicator]

This is the critical indicator because Executive Order 10450 requires that we carry out the basic investigation to help ensure that Federal employees are suitable.

In addition to the suitability workload shown below, we carried out 10 investigations into alleged abuses of the merit system (including test fraud) at the request of agency examining offices in FY 2000.

Actual numbers of suitability casework carried out were as follows:

Some of the FY 1999 figures have been corrected from the FY 1999 Performance Report.

M Minimize the number of suitability decisions overturned by MSPB on appeal.

As of September 30, only two OPM suitability decisions out of 1,433 were reversed upon appeal and one was under petition for review by the Board.

N Timeliness of suitability case processing is maintained at standards established and refined in FY 1998.

Time standards are not in the current contract. New investigative time standards for our contractor will be in place by July 2001 as set out in the new contract. We will be able to report timeliness data beginning in the fourth quarter of FY 2001.

M Provide investigations policy guidance, disseminate information, and oversee agencies’ security and suitability programs.

In November 1999, we continued our expanded information sharing with agencies by sponsoring another Security Directors’ Conference that focused on Investigations Focus Group Initiatives, Understanding Credit and FINCEN Reports, and the latest update on the 5 CFR.

N Assess results of the OPM survey of HR Directors.

Percent satisfied in the DCSS with suitability determinations information.

The FY 2000 DCSS did not include a question dealing with agency opportunity for involvement in this issue.

OPM is preparing to issue new suitability regulations for agencies. We will be offering training and a suitability processing handbook for agency security and suitability staff to help them implement the new regulations. We will also invite representatives from agencies’ human resources offices to participate with agencies’ security and suitability staff in the new Investigations’ Suitability Focus Group which will begin meeting in FY 2001.

NX Assess results of the OPM survey of HR Specialists.

Of those HR Specialists in the CSS who were involved in suitability programs, the percent satisfied with suitability determinations information.

The CSS was not conducted in FY 2000.

IS Goal 2 -- M

Ensure uniform application of investigative standards mandated by statute and Executive Order by developing and implementing Governmentwide investigative policy.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal I because uniformity in the application of investigative standards will aid in the recruitment and retention of the Federal workforce. There are four indicators to assess whether or not this goal is achieved. Of these, the second is the most critical indicator to help us assess if we are meeting our goal. We met this goal through membership on the U.S. Security Policy Forum of the U.S. Security Policy Board, issuing policy notices, hosting a Security Directors’ Conference and conducting our own Customer Satisfaction Assessment Survey of customer agencies.

This goal will be updated in FY 2001 to state “promote uniform . . .” because we cannot ensure that standards are applied uniformly.

M Continue as an active member of the U. S. Security Policy Forum of the U. S. Security Policy Board.

We have continued as an active member of the U.S. Security Policy Forum (SPF) and are involved in several initiatives. OPM chairs the Personnel Security Committee which develops Governmentwide policy, chairs the Investigations Working Group, and has staff members on virtually all the substructure committees, working groups, and panels of SPF. We have also been invited to be members of a number of other security community groups, including the Industrial Security Summit and the Board of Governors of the Extranet for Security Professionals, among others.

M Ensure Governmentwide uniformity in the application of investigative standards. [Critical indicator]

This indicator will be updated in FY 2001 to state “promote Governmentwide …” because we cannot ensure that standards are applied uniformly.

This is the critical indicator for this goal because agencies must uniformly apply standards so that only suitable employees are retained in the Federal service or given a security clearance. Lack of uniformity could also lead to a significant increase in the number of suitability decisions overturned by the MSPB.

We developed and disseminated investigative policy to other Federal agencies through four Federal Investigations Notices (FIN) and hosted another Security Directors’ Conference in November 1999.

During the Security/Suitability appraisals conducted in FY 2000, we again paid particular attention to agencies’ implementation of the investigative standards and adjudicative guidelines approved by the President in 1998. We reviewed agencies’ internal regulations to ensure that full implementation had taken place. If they had not been fully implemented, we worked with the agency to ensure that they were on course for compliance with the President’s mandate. We have found that we need to continue to educate agencies in this area to ensure that they are in full compliance.

M Feedback from IS’ Customer Satisfaction Assessment Survey (CSAS). This survey was administered in the second half of FY 1998 to help us determine how well we are providing services and guidance to our customer agencies. We expect to administer this survey instrument every eighteen to twenty-four months after having established our baseline data from the FY 1998 survey.

The percent satisfied in the CSAS were as follows:

We convened a focus group comprised of representatives from our largest customer agencies several times to discuss their investigative needs and to help us improve our service.

M Extent to which agencies have implemented new policies and standards.

We are using a combination of findings from our security appraisal visits and the results of our agency self-assessment instrument to determine the extent of implementation. We expect to have information from the appraisals and self-assessments carried out during FY 2000 and be able to report information on the extent of implementation in those agencies.

OPM STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL II

PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE MERIT-BASED CIVIL SERVICE AND THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PROGRAMS THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM.

IS Goal 3 -- M

Agency personnel security programs are made more effective as a result of OPM evaluations, which note best practices, identify deficiencies, and make recommendations for improvements.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal II to identify how well agencies are carrying out their security and suitability responsibilities. There are four indicators to assess whether or not this goal is achieved. Of these, the second is the most critical indicator to help us assess if we are meeting our goal. We met this goal through the use of our security appraisal self-assessment tool for agencies, carrying out on-site inspections of agencies’ security and suitability programs and reviewing agency feedback from our appraisals.

M Implementation and assessment of results of a new security appraisal self-assessment tool.

This is a correction of an indicator that was incorrectly worded in the FY 1999 Performance Report.

Fourteen agencies have completed self-assessments. Results from these self-assessments have led us to schedule two agencies for on-site appraisals.

M Quality of agencies’ personnel security operations. [Critical indicator]

This is the critical indicator for this goal because OPM must help ensure that agencies’ security and suitability operations are effectively carried out. During a security appraisal visit OPM verifies that agencies are correctly adjudicating suitability issue cases and having the correct level of investigation carried out in order to grant security clearances.

We completed five security appraisal visits, identified deficiencies, and made recommendations for corrective action.

M Agency feedback.

Agencies are given the opportunity to comment on our security appraisal reports and we follow-up with the agency if we have not received comments.

N Measurable improvements found in follow-up audits of agencies’ personnel security processes.

We did not conduct any follow-up visits in FY 2000. We expect to conduct some in the future. We will assess the results of agency self-appraisals to help us target agencies for followup visits.

OPM STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL IV

DELIVER HIGH-QUALITY, COST EFFECTIVE HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES, ANNUITANTS, AND THE PUBLIC.

IS Goal 4 -- M

The quality of investigations is maintained, workload demands are met with timely, relevant products, and the cost to agencies is decreased.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal IV to track the quantity and quality of investigative services we provide to our customer agencies. There are five indicators to assess whether or not this goal is achieved. Of these, the first and fifth are the most critical indicator to help us assess if we are meeting our goal. We met this goal by carrying out quality casework for agencies at a reasonable price and developing new products as needed.

M Quality of the contractor’s case products meets OPM standards. [Critical indicator]

This is a critical indicator for this goal because without high quality investigations, agencies will not have the information needed to grant appropriate security clearances.

We continue to carry out an intensive contractor oversight function to ensure that our contractor is maintaining a quality control inspection system which will assure that all investigative products submitted to OPM conform to contract requirements. In addition to these requirements, we engage in mail recontacts of sources to obtain feedback from the public.

M Percentage reduction in prices charged to OPM’s customer agencies.

The price of a 35-day background investigation was reduced from $2,775 to $2,695, a drop of 2.9 percent. The price of a 75-day background investigation was reduced from $2,525 to $2,495, a drop of 1.2 percent. The price of a 120-day background investigation was reduced from $2,375 to $2,295, a drop of 3.4 percent.

M OPM recovers program operating costs through effective case pricing.

We recovered our operating costs during FY 2000.

M Develop new products based on customer needs.

At the request of DoD, we have begun to carry out new cases developed for them to meet their expanding coverage needs.

M Carry out investigative workload for our customers through use of our contract with the ESOP private contract company. [Critical indicator]

This is a critical measure because agencies need the results of our investigations in order to adjudicate cases and/or grant security clearances.