Security Clearance Process an Opportunity for Government to Improve Candidate Experience

The government knows it has a talent acquisition problem. And as the government workforce grays, attracting new workers to federal service only grows more important. But while agencies have control over various aspects of the candidate experience journey, the security clearance process may not be considered by government agencies when they think about how they attract and onboard candidates. That’s why the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council Program Management Office commissioned a study from RAND to look into how the personnel vetting process ties into candidate experience. Written by David Stebbins, Richard S. Girven, and Samantha Ryan, the report dives into the candidate experience (or lack therof) and how to better align employment best practices with personnel vetting.

The report is a lengthy journey through the government candidate experience highlighting interviews with candidates and hiring managers, anecdotal insight into the process, and research into commercial sector candidate experience efforts. It concludes in Chapter 4 with a treatise on how the personnel vetting process can contribute (or detract from) that experience.

“A lack of formalized candidate experience policy has led to underprioritization of applicants within hiring and screening processes,” the report says. “The USG would likely benefit from a formalized candidate experience strategy and framework that could help organizations prioritize candidates within existing hiring and screening processes, but, absent a stronger demand signal from senior leadership, progress on providing a more comprehensive candidate experience across organizations may languish in lieu of other vetting modernization priorities.”

What is Candidate Experience?

Candidate experience is used to refer to all of the aspects of an initial job applicant’s interaction with and perception of an employer from awareness through onboarding. It heavily ties into a company or agency’s employer brand. Both candidate experience and employer brand are not parts of the hiring process government agencies typically consider. And even when they do, they may not consider the personnel vetting or security clearance process to be a part of that, even though for national security positions, the two are directly connected.

The RAND report highlighted the key differences between the private sector and public sector onboarding process, particularly around ‘passive’ candidates – the demographic that makes up the vast majority of the cleared workforce.

“Successful organizations also actively work to “entertain and engage” passive candidates,” the RAND report noted. “Providing video-based job testimonials, virtual tours (that incorporate virtual reality software), and website accessibility for multiple demographics, and having a well-defined customer journey map that includes a visual representation of the recruiting, hiring, onboarding, and career trajectory, can be deciding factors in a candidate’s choice to continue to the next step.”

These very specific employer branding activities and candidate journey maps are often completely lacking across the federal hiring space. Even where they’re implemented in individual agencies, a lack of formal policy across the federal government and any application toward the security clearance vetting and screening process means every agency and organization has a different approach to how they interact with candidates during the process – and very often that process is to do nothing.

Information sharing is typically informal, with a potential check in with employees at different parts of the process (when an SF-86 is received, or after a polygraph is conducted), but even within the same agency, the process can be different. Candidate experience for both initial onboarding/receipt of an SF-86 and reciprocity/transfer of trust cases can also vary dramatically.

Are Background Investigators a Part of the Candidate Experience?

Interestingly, the report highlighted background investigators as one potential area for exploration in the candidate experience journey.

“…many of the same factors that enable a positive interview experience in the private-sector screening stage could be applied to the background investigation interview. Ensuring that candidates have flexibility in scheduling the interview, providing accommodation for those who require additional accessibility considerations (e.g., virtual/video interviews), and catering to candidate needs (e.g., water, snacks) before and during the interview can have a lasting impact.”

I don’t love the idea of a background investigator presenting their interview subject with a badge and a bag of pretzels, but I do agree with the idea that basic accommodation during the background investigation process can have a significant positive impact on the candidate experience of the personnel vetting and security clearance process, particularly for diverse candidates. Security doesn’t have to be scary, and one of the best protections against insider threat is an accessible security team enabling a culture of self-reporting and proactive security awareness.

The polygraph is another aspect of the security clearance process where candidates can report friction, particularly due to a quick turn-around requirement to report for a polygraph, followed-up with little or no information.

Lack of feedback on the process

For many applicants in the federal space, it’s not a matter of candidate experience, it’s a matter of no experience. The lack of information at every stage of the process is one of the most frequent complaints about the process, and the core aspect of the government’s current hiring brand – otherwise known as the black hole. This is true of the USAJobs applicant hiring process, but also the government’s security clearance vetting process.

“Several interviewees suggested that the hardest part of the vetting process was the lack of transparency during the long wait for approval or denial. Not knowing for weeks or months or longer whether you will be cleared to take the job that has been offered to you can be very stressful, and in many cases may lead a candidate to eventually accept a position elsewhere, because the stress of not knowing is too great.”

Candidate Experience Considerations for the Federal Government (via RAND)

Pre–Initial Vetting Phase, Worked Example (Look for Job/Apply to Job)

USG Candidate Experience Strategic Considerations

Have we (re)evaluated our job announcements for relevancy and accuracy?
How do candidates know we exist? (How can we be more proactive?)
How do candidates know where to find more (accurate) information about us?
Do our mechanisms for engagement exclude any potential candidate source pools? (i.e., DEIA considerations)
What is motivating candidates to seek work right now?
How do we “appear” to those seeking federal work? (e.g., branding)
How do already-cleared populations (existing USG workers) know about our job opportunities?

Possible Candidate Activities

Talk to friends/family who may work in or know more about USG organizations, departments, and agencies
Perform internet searches on the department or agency to find out more
Attend on-campus recruiting/job fairs
Search social media and LinkedIn sites for connections

Possible Candidate Goals

Traditional Employee: Do I have the skills or qualifications needed for this job?
Emerging Generation: How can I identify with this organization? Does this company share any of my values? Is this organization diverse? Does this organization exhibit elements of CSR (solving external issues)?

USG Touchpoints (Human, Technology)

Social media presence
USG external websites (e.g., USAJobs, USAStaffing, individual agency
websites)
USG internal websites (applicant tracking systems)
Recruiter

USG Candidate Experience Goals/ Objectives

Identify, seek out negative “reviews” (blogs, Twitter, social media) to understand key obstacles and complaints
Develop variety of candidate personas to “test” candidate experience

Possible Candidate Experience Metrics

EVP
Virtual vs. In-person recruiting sessions (cost/benefit analysis)

Possible Candidate Experience Obstacles

Negative news/social media coverage (USG sentiment/general level of institutional trust)
Process/institutional rumors
Not advertising in nontraditional venues (DEIA considerations)
Glassdoor, other “complaint” career-oriented blogs

SSC Phases, Worked Example (Background Investigation/Adjudication) Framework Category Possible Framework Factors