Security clearances are supposed to check a subject's background for "issues". Foreign associates, a high percentage of debt, mental health, alcoholism, criminal history, and other items that would deem someone as "unfit" for a clearance. I used to travel to every county or district where each subject resided to check for criminal records. NACLC's (National Agency Criminal Legal Checks) are supposed to be conducted for each subject. Criminal records checks and credit checks are supposed to be ran and judged for each subject. Interviews with associates, former coworkers, neighbors.... are conducted to find patterns of issues that might deem a subject as unfit.
Unfortunately the way it goes now is that each case for a SSBI (Single Scope Background Investigation) for a security clearance has a requirement that investigators speak with 10 people who know the subject. Every place of employment and residence that the subject has been at in the past 10 years is supposed to be checked and persons interviewed about the subject. To be paid for the investigation, the contracting company must talk to at least 10 people. Lazy investigators will often ask the subject which ten people they should talk to. Once the threshold of 10 is reached and most records obtained, the contractor gets paid. There is no importance for finding out subjects who should not be adjudicated fit for a clearance, just talk to 10. If they cant find people who knew the subject at each residence or place of employment, they'll talk to friends who are aware that "oh yeah, he used to work at ABC and live in Smalltown, VA" and that would count as coverage for those items, without ever talking to a neighbor who could tell you that the cops were called to the house on a regular basis to break up fights or that he was fired for showing up to work drunk.
(Will cross post as an OP)
= new reply since forum marked as read