The authors examine how applicants experience the U.S. government’s personnel vetting (PV) process and identify practical and evidence-based strategies for improving that experience while maintaining the government’s ability to assess applicant trustworthiness. The authors also developed an applicant toolkit that contains a set of practical resources designed to help applicants better understand and navigate the PV process.

Insights and Tools to Improve the Applicant Experience with the Personnel Vetting and Security Clearance Process

Stephanie J. Walsh, Sina Beaghley, Emily Higgs, Lewis Schneider

ResearchPublished Jun 17, 2026

Cover: Insights and Tools to Improve the Applicant Experience with the Personnel Vetting and Security Clearance Process
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes Annex I: The Personnel Vetting Process; Annex II: Guide to Completing the Vetting Questionnaire; Annex III: Security Clearance Guidelines in Brief; and more

In this report, the authors examine how applicants experience the U.S. government’s (USG’s) personnel vetting (PV) process and identify practical and evidence-based strategies for improving that experience while maintaining the government’s ability to effectively assess applicant trustworthiness. The authors reviewed past RAND research on PV, interviewed stakeholders, attended industry listening sessions, and assessed select USG and industry websites to understand applicants’ experiences and the resources available to them during the vetting process.

The authors developed a conceptual framework to capture and analyze applicants’ experiences and identified strategies for improving the PV experience, including ways in which agencies and industry can help clarify and manage applicants’ expectations. They also developed a Personnel Vetting 101 Applicant Toolkit, which contains a set of practical resources designed to help applicants better understand and navigate the PV process.

Key Takeaways

  • PV is not only a security function but also a critical workforce process that directly affects recruitment, retention, and trust in the USG. However, the USG’s PV system was designed primarily to address security concerns and has historically emphasized risk management—sometimes at the expense of the applicant experience.
  • Inconsistent, incomplete, inaccurate, unclear, and hard-to-find information from official sources not only makes it difficult for applicants to understand the PV process but also leads to confusion and misunderstandings.
  • Unclear instructions, inconsistent support from security and vetting professionals, and a limited ability to track progress make it difficult for applicants to navigate the PV process.
  • Applicants’ perceptions of the PV process are shaped by how well they understand and navigate the process and by their interpersonal experiences along the way.

Recommendations

  • Approach PV as both a security and a workforce issue. Applying a customer-service mindset and developing communications, tools, and procedures that are more clear, intuitive, and responsive to the needs of all types of applicants can make the PV process more efficient, intuitive, and applicant focused while maintaining security standards.
  • Ensure that PV communications are clear, easily accessible, and consistent across government agencies. Applicants need clear, easily accessible, and consistent information about requirements, what to expect, and how to complete each step of the PV process.
  • Use multichannel, applicant-focused communication strategies. Reaching applicants and employees through multiple communication channels can expand awareness, improve understanding, and reinforce key messages about PV.
  • Provide targeted guidance, training, and tools for human resources, security, and vetting staff. Consistent training and job aids for recruiters, security officers, and investigators can improve communication with applicants, reduce confusion, and strengthen professionalism.
  • Continue refining and simplifying vetting questionnaires. Simplifying the language, improving the layout, and integrating user-friendly features would make questionnaires easier to complete accurately and enhance the efficiency of the overall vetting process.
  • Increase transparency and help applicants track progress. Such tools as dashboards or progress trackers, supplemented by regular status updates from security offices, can help applicants understand where they are in the PV process and what to expect next.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Walsh, Stephanie J., Sina Beaghley, Emily Higgs, and Lewis Schneider, Insights and Tools to Improve the Applicant Experience with the Personnel Vetting and Security Clearance Process. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3923-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council Program Management Office (PAC PMO). This work was conducted within the Personnel, Readiness, and Health Program of the RAND National Security Research Division.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.