A new Government Accountability Office report raises questions about how accurately the federal government is tracking the security clearance process.
The report, GAO-26-107100, reviews how agencies report clearance data to support oversight by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. GAO found that much of the data used to measure clearance timeliness and effectiveness is incomplete, inaccurate, or both.
This matters because clearance data is used by Congress, senior leaders, and oversight bodies to understand whether the system is working as intended. According to GAO, right now it is not.
What GAO Reviewed
GAO examined security clearance data submitted for the third quarter of fiscal year 2024 by seven agencies that collectively represent more than 90% of the federal clearance population. These agencies reported summary statistics across eight required categories, including investigations, adjudications, reciprocity, and continuous vetting.
In total, GAO reviewed 305 reported statistics. Of those, 191 were found to be inaccurate or incomplete. That is roughly 63% of the data reviewed.
The most significant issues appeared in clearance timeliness reporting. GAO found that 86% of timeliness statistics contained errors. In nearly one third of those cases, the reported data differed from GAO’s recalculations by 20% or more.
Where the Data Went Wrong
GAO identified several recurring problems across agencies.
One of the most common issues was the incorrect application of reporting guidance, particularly related to how long investigations and adjudications took to complete. In several cases, agencies excluded slower cases that should have been counted, making processing times appear faster than they actually were.
GAO also found inconsistencies in how agencies defined key data points and applied required methodologies. This meant that even when agencies were reporting similar metrics, they were not always measuring them the same way.
Oversight Gaps at the Federal Level
The report does not place responsibility solely on individual agencies. GAO also points to shortcomings in how clearance data is overseen at the government-wide level.
ODNI collects clearance data to support oversight and reporting to Congress, but GAO found that it does not have a formal process in place to assess the reliability of the data it receives. Without basic checks for accuracy, completeness, and consistency, flawed data can move through the system without being flagged.
GAO notes that existing guidance does not require agencies to assess data reliability before submitting their reports. As a result, errors often go undetected until an external review like this one occurs.
Why This Matters
Security clearance data is more than an internal management tool. It informs congressional oversight, budget decisions, and broader reform efforts such as Trusted Workforce 2.0.
When clearance timelines are underreported or inconsistent, it becomes harder to identify real bottlenecks, workforce shortages, or systemic risks. It can also create a false sense of progress, particularly when agencies appear to meet performance goals based on flawed metrics.
For contractors, hiring managers, and cleared professionals, inaccurate data can ripple outward. Staffing plans, hiring timelines, and workforce readiness projections all depend on an honest understanding of how long the clearance process actually takes.
GAO’s Recommendations
To address these issues, GAO issued four recommendations focused primarily on improving data reliability and oversight.
Among them, GAO recommends that ODNI establish a formal process to assess the reliability of clearance data before using it for oversight or reporting purposes. GAO also recommends clearer guidance to agencies on how to evaluate and validate their own data before submission.
At the time the report was published, ODNI had not fully agreed or disagreed with the recommendations, though it did provide comments that GAO addressed in the final report.
