Eric LebsonEric Lebson
Terrorism is effective because it provokes terror, which shakes our confidence in the institutions designed to protect us. We seek to regain control through institutions and policies, some more reasonable than others. Reorganization of bureaucratic systems — such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and reactive and mistargeted invectives like Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims — are but two examples of how widely the pendulum can swing. But the truth is that there are no perfectly effective means of ensuring that someone who is mentally imbalanced or secretly harbors ill intent will not sneak through whatever gauntlet we put in his or her path.

As a result of recent incidents, one industry in particular is in the spotlight like never before. Companies that perform pre-employment vetting — whether for government security clearances or for civilian commercial hires — are being held to an impossible standard that is inextricably linked to the value proposition they offer to the marketplace. Recent incidents have raised a question for these industries that essentially forces them to prove the negative: Why didn’t you know?

In November 2009, Major Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, killed 13 and injured at least 30 others at Ft. Hood. Major Hassan came to the attention of the FBI prior to the Ft. Hood shooting because of postings on the Internet about suicide bombings and his attempts to contact Al-Qaeda, including his successful engagement via email with Anwar al-Awlaki. As a U.S. Army officer, Major Hassan would have had at least a Secret level clearance.

In January 2010, U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst serving in Iraq, leaked a large quantity of classified documents, cables, and videos to Wikileaks. Media reports indicated that, in his role in the Army, Private Manning would have held a Top Secret clearance.

In May 2013, NSA contractor Edward Snowden fled the U.S. and exposed highly classified information to the public. At the time, he was employed by Booz Allen Hamilton, but before that he had worked for both Dell (as a contractor) and the CIA (directly), all of which presumably vetted him for Top Secret clearances.

In the September 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people and injured three more. He was a civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy and had been granted a Secret-level clearance based on an investigation performed by U.S. Investigative Services, Inc., despite a history of mental illness and criminal incidents.

In June 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at the Orlando nightclub Pulse. It was later revealed that Mateen worked as a security guard, having been vetted by his employer, G4S Security Solutions USA, Inc.

What commonality exists between people who leaked sensitive information and those who committed acts of terrorism? In each of the above instances — and in many other similar examples from the past few years — the perpetrators had supposedly been subjected to some degree of vetting. Whether they were vetted by a U.S. government entity or by a private sector contractor, there was a basis for believing that they would not do what they each ultimately did. As any private sector human resources professional who has ever had to fire an employee for inappropriate behavior or the misuse of internal secrets knows, vetting a hire is an imperfect science.

In May 2014, the Washington Post reported that about 5.1 million people in the U.S. had security clearances in 2013. Unfortunately for the vetting companies, the media does not write stories about the people they approve who do not engage in illicit behavior. It is the very small percentage of people that get through the system and create harm that establishes the impossible standard for this industry.

A 2013 survey of employers by CareerBuilder.com showed that the hiring of a bad employee can impact a company in terms of morale, client relations, productivity, retention, and sales. On top of that is the liability a company incurs from possible litigation with the employee or with others who are negatively impacted by the employee.

“Making a wrong decision regarding a hire can have several adverse consequences across an organization,” said CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson. “When you add up missed sales opportunities, strained client and employee relations, potential legal issues and resources to hire and train candidates, the cost can be considerable.”

Companies must manage the need to vet someone for a position of responsibility against the impossibility of getting it right every time. The consequences of getting it wrong can be severe. In February 2015, USIS, which had processed and recommended security clearances for both Aaron Alexis and Edward Snowden, filed for bankruptcy protection. In August 2015 they settled allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice that they violated the False Claims Act, forgoing $30 million because of charges that they failed to satisfy the terms of their contract requiring adequate quality control on the background investigations they were conducting for the U.S. Government.

Companies seeking to vet a potential new hire can now choose from among a growing number of websites that purport to offer a background check that can be completed — in minutes — for under $100. Companies that offer much more robust investigations of potential hires must demonstrate what differentiates them from the competition, and why their fees range into tens of thousands of dollars. One approach to managing both expectations and liability is to be clear about the scope of a “background investigation” and what the resulting judgment means.

Understanding what a background investigation will seek to determine, what records it will review, and how the assessment methodology ultimately translates into a judgment may put more responsibility into the hands of hiring managers, but it also gives them more control of the process and its result. For the company doing the vetting, this also helps to establish what criteria will be checked, something that is more objectively provable in case a person passes all of the tests of the background check and still ends up being a problem employee. Even when a problem employee has made it through the vetting process, demonstrating that the process was as diligent and exhaustive as possible can help a company deflect at least some criticism and liability. In the end, no system will catch everyone who has a problem or harbors ill intent, but sharing the burden of vetting is a positive move for both the vetting firm and the client.

* * *

Eric Lebson is a former national security official who leads the Business Intelligence Practice at LEVICK, a public affairs and crisis communications firm. He can be reached at [email protected].