Review the new 2014 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Handbook
Answering your questions about Healthcare and Insurance
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
DIRECTOR U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
SECURITY CLEARANCE REFORM: MOVING FORWARD ON MODERNIZATION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss security clearance reform efforts and the progress OPM has made over the last year to improve the security clearance process.
Five years ago, when the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) was passed into law, there was a substantial backlog of both initial security clearance determinations and the required reinvestigations for continued access to our Nation’s most sensitive national security information. Federal agencies lacked sufficient resources, for both the investigation and adjudication phases of processing. Furthermore, antiquated or dysfunctional processing systems and record systems across Government were a significant challenge to eliminating this backlog and achieving acceptable timeliness. The average time required to obtain a Top Secret security clearance was in excess of one year, and a Secret or Confidential clearance averaged well over six months to process.
The timeliness goals established in the Act required that all agencies involved work cooperatively to build adequate processing capacity and develop a strategy to reduce processing time to an acceptable level by the end of calendar year 2009. Specifically, that goal is to process 90% of all initial security clearance determinations in an average of 60 days or less, allowing 40 days for the investigation phase and 20 days for the adjudication process, to the extent practical.
OPM provides background investigation products and services to agencies for their use as a basis for security clearance or suitability determinations for OPM customers. The employing or adjudicating agencies identify the level of clearance or access required, obtain the required background data and forms, and initiate the appropriate level of investigation commensurate with the position requirements. Since assuming responsibility for DOD’s personnel security investigations program in FY 2005, OPM now provides over 90% of the background investigations required by the Federal Government. Over 2 million investigations will be completed by OPM this fiscal year, with over 650,000 conducted to support initial security clearance determinations.
The Federal Investigative Services Division (FISD) under the leadership of Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director, is responsible for conducting background investigations at OPM. Over 10,000 submitting offices, representing over 100 Federal agencies, request investigations from FISD. FISD is staffed with over 2,300 Federal employees and 6,000 contractors that include a nationwide network of field investigators and support staff as well as a cadre of Federal agents working abroad. FISD manages a complex suite of automated processing systems that has demonstrated ample capacity to handle the Government’s high-volume demand for investigations.
Once completed, the investigations are returned to the employing or governing agency for the adjudication process.
Progress Made to Improve the Security Clearance Process
In May 2008, Ms. Dillaman testified before this committee, outlining the significant progress that had been made in many of the critical areas or stages of processing security clearance determinations. That progress has continued over the past year, with the assistance of our partners in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to transform the clearance process from beginning to end.
There is no backlog in OPM’s investigations program.OPM is currently exceeding the IRTPA December 2009 timeliness goals for the investigations portion of the initial security clearance process. The following chart shows how OPM has met its goals:
Time measured in calendar days
Clearance-granting agencies have also shown continuous improvement in reducing the time required to adjudicate investigations, despite increasing workloads as OPM eliminated the investigations backlog.
During the third quarter of FY 2009, 10 of the 15 agencies whose adjudication performance is being tracked by OPM exceeded the December 2009 IRTPA goals for adjudicating 90% of their initial clearance investigations within an average of 20 days or less. These 10 agencies adjudicated 44% of all actions reported. The remaining five agencies continue to show progress toward this goal.
In previous testimonies before this subcommittee, OPM mapped the process for making security clearance determinations and the various stages of processing and external dependencies that could affect the overall timeliness for clearance determinations. We are addressing each of these with notable success, implementing validated improvements to the traditional process. Specific accomplishments include:
These initiatives have not only driven down the time required to process security clearance investigations; they have resulted in processing efficiencies that have contained the cost of conducting these investigations. Recently, we announced that the processing efficiencies introduced this year offset the increases we anticipate in contractor and labor costs. Consequently, there will be no price increase for OPM investigative products in FY 2010.
While OPM has been aggressive in our efforts to meet the timeliness goals set forth by the Intelligence Reform Act, we remain equally dedicated to providing quality products to our customer agencies. In FY 2010, OPM will put in place two additional methods of obtaining feedback from our customers on the quality of the investigations we conduct.
The performance subcommittee of the Performance Accountability Council is finalizing a data gathering tool to provide agencies another avenue to report on the quality of specific background investigations. This process has been tested with the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy, and Department of Homeland Security, and the results of that test are being analyzed to further refine the process.
We are also implementing a “Quality Hotline” to allow agency adjudicators to discuss their questions or concerns with experienced case analysts at FISD, who, in turn, will report directly to FISD’s Associate Director. OPM will use the information collected through the feedback methods to identify training opportunities for investigative and adjudicative staff.
These new initiatives supplement our extensive Quality Assurance program that continues to identify quality deficiencies and agency satisfaction with our products and services.
OPM is fully engaged in support of a transformed process for making hiring and clearance determinations, leveraging modern tools and technologies while providing the quality of information needed to make these determinations. The framework for this process, identified by reports from the team in April and December 2008, calls for alignment of suitability and security clearance processes to the extent practicable, enabling the application of consistent standards and the reciprocal recognition of investigations. Much of the work of reform is being carried out through efforts to move beyond confinements of legacy systems and permit greater information sharing between Executive branch stakeholders. OPM continues to work with its partners on the Joint Reform Team (JRT) to bring the transformed process to maturity while adopting those elements of the process that can be migrated into the day-to-day operations that support agency needs and missions.
We support the reform goal of marshaling policy, procedures, and tools in a way that prevents unnecessary investigation requests.
We are developing the next generation eApplication for security clearance investigations, building from our current electronic system (e-QIP).
We will continue to support ongoing opportunities to leverage automation in the adjudication phase of the end-to-end process to assist case flagging and analysis.
In support of the goals of the Performance Accountability Council, we are developing training to meet certification requirements for investigators and security clearance adjudicators being established by the Training Subcommittee. These training standards are being developed for the Executive Branch agencies to support a consistent quality expectation that bolsters reciprocity.
I am extremely proud of the progress that my team has made eliminating the backlog of background investigations, meeting stringent timeliness goals, and sustaining a focus on quality. We are committed to continuing our collaborative work with the ODNI and DOD to create a roadmap for future enhancements that support our collective goals for quality, timeliness, efficiency, and privacy protection.
By integrating current technology with updated standards and proven information collection techniques, we will continue to protect national security without imposing excessive delays for those who have signed on to serve our Government. And we are equally committed to balancing the Government’s need to collect sensitive information for adjudication with individuals’ right to privacy regarding background information that is irrelevant to a security clearance determination.
This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Back to top