Councils
Where Expertise Meets Action.
INSA’s policy councils and subcommittees bring together professionals from government, industry, and academia to address the intelligence and national security community’s most pressing challenges. Councils do not just talk about issues; they help shape them.
As a member, councils offer:
- Opportunities to shape policies that strengthen the IC's effectiveness and efficiency
- Thought leadership through white papers, op-eds, podcasts, and panel discussions
- Collaboration with peers and government partners in trusted, solution-focused forums
- Access to government and academic leaders who share challenges, priorities, and opportunities for collaboration
Get Involved!
Council service ensures that INSA members play an active part in advancing policy ideas and solutions that support the U.S. intelligence and national security mission.
Thought Leadership
White Papers & Op-Eds
Op-Ed: Fixing the Clearance Bottleneck: Cut Red Tape, Not Capabilities
This July 17 Federal News Network Op-Ed by Don Blersch, Chair of INSA's Security Policy Reform Council, and Lindy Kyzer, Vice Chair of INSA's Security Policy Reform Council, calls for federal agencies to streamline and standardize clearance transfer processes across and within agencies.
Every year, the federal government loses hundreds of millions of dollars to a problem hiding in plain sight: redundant clearance transfer processes.
Across national security agencies, highly qualified industry professionals with active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearances are regularly delayed from starting new assignments, not due to security concerns, but because of outdated and inconsistent administrative requirements. These individuals are already cleared to work in secure facilities on classified systems. Yet when they change roles, even within the same agency, the red tape kicks in.
Here is a typical scenario: A contractor wins a one-year contract to support a critical national security mission. The good news? The team already has the right people, cleared, trained and ready to go. But instead of starting immediately, their access is revoked.
Even if they’re simply moving between agencies, or components within the same agency, they are pulled out of the system, formally debriefed, and then re-nominated for the exact same access and same level of classified information they were already cleared to handle.
From there, it only gets messier. Some offices use different IT systems and require justification memos, despite contract language that clearly states TS/SCI access is needed. Some require contractors to repeat training they’ve already completed, because one office doesn’t accept another’s documentation.
These delays aren’t rare — they’re routine. Transitions often stretch three to five weeks per person, leaving mission-critical work untouched. Contractors sit idle, either paid to wait or sidelined without compensation. Agencies fall behind schedule, burn through time-sensitive funding, and delay delivery on urgent national security priorities.
The cost adds up fast.
Podcasts
Op-Ed: Fixing the Clearance Bottleneck: Cut Red Tape, Not Capabilities
This July 17 Federal News Network Op-Ed by Don Blersch, Chair of INSA's Security Policy Reform Council, and Lindy Kyzer, Vice Chair of INSA's Security Policy Reform Council, calls for federal agencies to streamline and standardize clearance transfer processes across and within agencies.
Every year, the federal government loses hundreds of millions of dollars to a problem hiding in plain sight: redundant clearance transfer processes.
Across national security agencies, highly qualified industry professionals with active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearances are regularly delayed from starting new assignments, not due to security concerns, but because of outdated and inconsistent administrative requirements. These individuals are already cleared to work in secure facilities on classified systems. Yet when they change roles, even within the same agency, the red tape kicks in.
Here is a typical scenario: A contractor wins a one-year contract to support a critical national security mission. The good news? The team already has the right people, cleared, trained and ready to go. But instead of starting immediately, their access is revoked.
Even if they’re simply moving between agencies, or components within the same agency, they are pulled out of the system, formally debriefed, and then re-nominated for the exact same access and same level of classified information they were already cleared to handle.
From there, it only gets messier. Some offices use different IT systems and require justification memos, despite contract language that clearly states TS/SCI access is needed. Some require contractors to repeat training they’ve already completed, because one office doesn’t accept another’s documentation.
These delays aren’t rare — they’re routine. Transitions often stretch three to five weeks per person, leaving mission-critical work untouched. Contractors sit idle, either paid to wait or sidelined without compensation. Agencies fall behind schedule, burn through time-sensitive funding, and delay delivery on urgent national security priorities.
The cost adds up fast.
Leave a comment