Sina Beaghley has worked for years to solve a problem that could keep good candidates from considering government service.
Intelligence officers, members of the military, and other key government employees and contractors have to undergo security screening. The process can be difficult and time-consuming. A few clicks on the internet, and prospective candidates can find countless stories of people stuck in security-clearance limbo.
Yet the government has made big strides in modernizing and improving the process. Beaghley, a senior international and defense researcher at RAND, has provided much of the research underpinning that effort. She and her research teams have also developed plain-English guidance to make the process less intimidating. Do applicants need to report past marijuana use? Yes. Will seeking treatment for a mental health concern automatically disqualify them from a federal position? No.
Beaghley came to RAND from the National Security Council staff, where she led the security review following a massive leak of classified documents in 2013 by then-contractor Edward Snowden. She has also worked at the National Counterterrorism Center, the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Treasury Department.
What's at stake in efforts to improve the security clearance process?
This is really about recruiting and retaining the best candidates for government service, especially those who can be trusted with federal security clearances. These are the people the government needs to execute its missions. But if the clearance process is too cumbersome, it's going to discourage them from even applying. It can also cause confusion, which opens the door to a lot of misinformation when people turn to the internet for advice.
What are some of the most common examples of misinformation you've found?
People think that things like student debt or foreign travel will disqualify them from getting a job that requires a federal clearance. But the reality is that there are very few issues that automatically disqualify someone. When there are concerns, what the government looks for is mitigating factors.
So maybe you had a drug problem, but you sought treatment and haven't touched drugs for years. That's something where the government will have to decide: Is this person a risk? Or have they mitigated the problem, and we can trust them?
Another big misperception is with dual citizenship. We found a really widespread perception that dual citizens can't get a security clearance. One hundred percent not true. In fact, the U.S. government wants people who have foreign experience and expertise in some of these key national security positions. They can make the government more effective in executing international policy. But they do, clearly, need to display loyalty to the United States.
Where would you make changes?
The government has been working for years now to improve this process, and it's done a lot already. But it's not all the way there yet. You ask almost anyone who's gotten a security clearance, and unless they've never traveled, have no foreign contacts—have absolutely no reportable situations—they're going to have stories about how long it took or how difficult it was.
At RAND, we've really focused on improving the experience for applicants. So, for example, putting everything in plain language so people can understand it. Making sure the instructions are consistent across agencies. The idea is to improve recruitment and retention, and that requires people who are willing to go through the process. The process can't be such a nightmare that people don't even want to embark on it.
The reality is that there are very few issues that automatically disqualify someone.
What advice would you give someone considering a job that requires vetting?
My best advice: Be honest. Most issues have mitigating factors that the government will look at. But if you're not honest, then the issue becomes your personal conduct. The government will say, “You weren't honest here, so how can we expect you to be honest in the future?”
And then, don't let the process intimidate you. Understand that it's not necessarily going to be the quickest and easiest process, but there are resources out there that can help. Our RAND team developed a toolkit that includes a step-by-step guide so people know what to expect. It has tips for completing the vetting questionnaire (PDF), section by section, explaining what to include and what not to include. And we tried, as much as possible, to put it all into plain English.
You've been through the process a few times. What was your experience like?
I was actually just updating my security clearance as I was writing our most recent report on this. And I had to call a support hotline twice and ask for help because parts of the process were so unclear. And that's for me, who's supposed to be an expert here! Fortunately, someone did answer my questions and helped me make sure I was providing the correct information. So that's progress in improving the applicant experience, and I'll take that!
