The Washington Post

Report cites quality-control problems with security clearance process

Columnist

In its detached, bland, yet on-point way, the Government Accountability Office is letting folks know there are real problems with the government’s security clearance process.

Time and again in testimony to a House subcommittee Wednesday, Brenda S. Farrell, a GAO director, emphasized the need for better quality control in a government where almost 5 million people, including contractors, have security clearances.

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about federal government and workplace issues that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. View Archive

Here’s what her report says:

●“Executive branch agencies do not consistently assess quality throughout the security clearance process.”

● ● Agencies “have not fully developed and implemented” measures of “quality in key aspects of the personnel security clearance process.”

● ●Agencies “do not have reasonable assurance that security clearance position designations are correct, which could compromise national security.”

●“A high-quality process is essential in order to minimize the risks of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”

Citing Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, leakers of classified information, and Aaron Alexis, the Washington Navy Yard contractor who gunned down 12 people before being shot dead by police, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security counterterrorism and intelligence subcommittee, called for “reforms and rigorous oversight of the security clearance process. . . . It is vital that more is done to identify insider threats.”

The problem, however, might not just be one of quality, but also one of quantity.

The hearing didn’t focus on how much Uncle Sam makes secret and how many people it takes to keep those secrets. But when looking at ways to fix the security clearance process, it’s worth examining why there are so many secrets in the first place.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) did that during a Senate hearing two weeks ago.

“Two problems,” he said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. “There’s way too much stuff that’s classified that . . . doesn’t need to be classified. And, number two, there’s way too many security clearances approved. So if you markedly increase the amount of material that doesn’t need to be classified, you have to increase the number of people that need to have access to it. So we need to address both problems.”

The issue of too many secrets hasn’t received as much attention as the lapses in security, but there was some indication Wednesday that members of Congress are concerned about the growing number of people with security clearances.

“These vast numbers grow year by year,” said Rep. Brian Higgins (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee. The 4.9 million clearances across the government include, he said, 124,000 employees in the Department of Homeland Security.

A statement from Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the ranking Democrat on the full committee, said that 10 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, “the sheer volume of Americans holding security clearances was astonishing.”

He linked quality-control deficiencies to the explosion in positions requiring clearances.

“The lack of clear criteria and commonly accepted standards may contribute to the exponential growth in federal jobs requiring a security clearance,” Thompson said. “GAO also found that security clearance requirements for federal jobs that do not involve handling national security information may hinder transparency and openness in government.”

On Thursday, a different House Homeland Security subcommittee will focus on a specific group of federal employees with security clearances: Transportation Security Administration airport behavior detection officers, known as BDOs. Thursday’s hearing, however, will not focus on their clearances, but on their effectiveness.

BDOs use a “Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques” (SPOT) program to identify airline passengers who seem suspicious and might pose a risk to air travel.

But another GAO report that will be discussed at that hearing said “available evidence does not support whether behavioral indicators . . . can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security.”

GAO added this: “Until TSA can provide scientifically validated evidence . . . the agency risks funding activities that have not been determined to be effective.”

TSA Administrator John Pistole is scheduled to testify at the transportation security subcommittee hearing, and he’ll defend the program. Statements released by the agency Wednesday said “behavior detection is vital to TSA’s layered approach to deter, detect and disrupt individuals who pose a threat to aviation. . . . Looking for suspicious behavior is a common sense approach” and is supported by research.

But the report gives ammunition to members of Congress who want to eliminate a government program. Usually, those members are Republicans. This time it is Democrats leading the charge.

The SPOT program, Thompson said, “is fundamentally flawed, cannot be proven effective, and should no longer be funded with taxpayer dollars.”

Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP

Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at wapo.st/JoeDavidson.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday. Get caught up on the race.
The feminist appeal may not be working for Clinton
In New Hampshire, Sen. Bernie Sanders is beating Clinton among women by eight percentage points, according to a new CNN-WMUR survey. This represents a big shift from the results last week in the Iowa caucuses, where Clinton won women by 11 points.
The Post's Dan Balz says ...
This was supposed to be the strongest Republican presidential field in memory, but cracks are showing. At Saturday night's debate, Marco Rubio withered in the face of unyielding attacks from Chris Christie, drawing attention to the biggest question about his candidacy: Is he ready to be president? How much the debate will affect Rubio's standing Tuesday is anybody's guess. But even if he does well, the question about his readiness to serve as president and to go up against Clinton, if she is the Democratic nominee, will linger.
New Hampshire polling averages
Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the next state to vote, but Marco Rubio has recently seen a jump in his support, according to polls.
New Hampshire polling averages
A victory in New Hampshire revitalized Hillary Clinton's demoralized campaign in 2008. But this time, she's trailing Bernie Sanders, from neighboring Vermont. She left the state Sunday to go to Flint, Mich., where a cost-saving decision led to poisonous levels of lead in the water of the poor, heavily black, rust-belt city. 
55% 40%
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
State of the race
Most Read

politics

federal_government

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.