This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-650 
entitled 'Freedom of Information Act: Office of Government Information 
Services Has Begun Implementing Its Responsibilities, but Further 
Actions Are Needed' which was released on September 10, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of 
Representatives: 

September 2013: 

Freedom of Information Act: 

Office of Government Information Services Has Begun Implementing Its 
Responsibilities, but Further Actions Are Needed: 

GAO-13-650: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-650, a report to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The OPEN Government Act of 2007 amended FOIA and established OGIS 
within the National Archives and Records Administration to provide 
oversight and assistance to federal agencies in implementing FOIA. To 
evaluate how effectively the office is meeting its responsibilities, 
GAO assessed the actions that the office has taken to (1) implement 
its responsibilities for reviewing agencies’ policies, procedures, and 
compliance with FOIA; (2) mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and 
federal agencies; and (3) recommend policy changes to Congress and the 
President and develop and issue guidance and best practices to improve 
the administration of FOIA. To do so, GAO analyzed documents 
describing the office’s plans and activities for conducting reviews, 
mediation case files, and documents describing its policy 
recommendations made to Congress and the President and its guidance 
and best practices. GAO also interviewed officials at relevant 
agencies. 

What GAO Found: 

Since its establishment in 2009, the Office of Government Information 
Services (OGIS) has provided comments on proposed Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) regulations for 18 of 99 federal agencies that 
administer FOIA, as well as a number of Privacy Act system of records 
notices. While OGIS has suggested improvements to a number of those 
regulations and notices, it has not performed the reviews of 
regulations and notices in a proactive, comprehensive manner, and has 
not conducted any reviews of agencies’ compliance with the law. In 
addition, since it was established 4 years ago, the office has not 
developed a methodology for conducting reviews of agencies’ FOIA 
policies and procedures, or for compliance with FOIA requirements. 
OGIS is in the early stages of developing a methodology for conducting 
such reviews, but has not established a time frame for completion. 
Until OGIS establishes a methodology and time frame for proactively 
reviewing agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance, the 
office will not be positioned to effectively execute its 
responsibilities as required by the act. 

OGIS is providing mediation services and is resolving disputes that 
might otherwise go unresolved or lead to litigation, although not all 
of its efforts have been successful. OGIS has achieved positive 
results for about two-thirds of the cases reviewed by GAO where 
mediation services were provided. For example, in several cases, one 
or both parties took action or modified their position after OGIS’s 
intervention. Nevertheless, the office lacks quantifiable goals and 
measures for its mediation activities, as required by law. For 
example, it does not have goals to measure timeliness or success. 
Without these important management tools, OGIS cannot determine how 
effectively its mediation services are in improving the implementation 
of FOIA. 

Since April 2012, OGIS has issued nine recommendations to Congress and 
the President aimed at improving the administration of FOIA. These 
recommendations focus on areas where OGIS could help agencies improve 
their FOIA processes as well as areas where its role could be made 
more effective. These recommendations were based on its ongoing work 
with federal agencies and with members of the public. In addition, 
while not required to issue guidance or best practices, the office 
collects best practices for improving FOIA processing from several 
sources, including its reviews of agencies’ annual FOIA reports and 
mediation case files, as well as anecdotally from persons involved in 
mediation cases facilitated by the office. OGIS shares these best 
practices in its annual reports and on its website and blog. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that OGIS fulfill its statutory responsibilities 
by establishing (1) a time frame for completing and implementing a 
methodology for proactively reviewing agencies’ policies, procedures, 
and compliance with FOIA requirements and (2) measures and goals for 
its mediation services. In written comments on a draft of the report, 
the National Archives and Records Administration concurred with the 
recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-650]. For more 
information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or 
melvinv@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

OGIS Has Assisted Agencies, but Has Not Proactively Reviewed Agencies' 
FOIA Policies, Procedures, and Compliance: 

OGIS Is Mediating Disputes, but Lacks Goals and Metrics for Measuring 
Timeliness and Success: 

OGIS Has Made Recommendations and Issued Best Practices for Improving 
the Administration of FOIA: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Examples of OGIS Best Practices for Improving Agencies' 
Implementation of FOIA: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Organizational Chart Depicting OGIS within NARA: 

Abbreviations: 

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 

Justice: Department of Justice: 

OGIS: Office of Government Information Services: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 10, 2013: 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)[Footnote 1] requires federal 
agencies to provide the public with access to government records and 
information on the basis of the principles of openness and 
accountability in government. In this regard, each year hundreds of 
thousands of FOIA requests are made to federal agencies--with the 
information released in response to these requests contributing to the 
disclosure of government waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as other 
conditions, such as unsafe consumer products and harmful drugs. 
However, keeping up with this demand for information and responding in 
a timely manner has been challenging for federal agencies. Congress, 
in turn, has amended the act to guide agencies in the administration 
of their FOIA operations. One such enactment--the OPEN Government Act 
of 2007[Footnote 2]--established the Office of Government Information 
Services (OGIS) within the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) to oversee and assist agencies in implementing 
FOIA. Toward this end, the office was charged with reviewing federal 
agencies' FOIA policies and procedures and their compliance with FOIA, 
and recommending policy changes to Congress and the President to 
improve the administration of FOIA. Additionally, OGIS was required to 
offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters 
and agencies. 

Given the important role that OGIS has been assigned, we were 
requested to evaluate how effectively the office is meeting its 
responsibilities. In particular, our objectives were to assess the 
actions that the office has taken to (1) review agencies' FOIA 
policies, procedures, and compliance; (2) mediate disputes between 
FOIA requesters and federal agencies; and (3) recommend policy changes 
to Congress and the President, and develop and issue guidance and best 
practices to agencies aimed at improving the administration of FOIA. 

To assess the actions that OGIS has taken to review federal agencies' 
FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance, we analyzed available 
documentation describing the office's plans and activities for 
conducting agency reviews. This included OGIS's annual reports and 
quarterly progress reports that summarized its plans and activities. 
We also analyzed the office's comments on proposed agency regulations, 
Privacy Act of 1974[Footnote 3] system of records notices,[Footnote 4] 
and correspondence. In analyzing OGIS's plans for conducting agency 
reviews, we applied program evaluation guidance[Footnote 5] that 
focuses on assessing the effectiveness of program operations and 
results. 

To assess OGIS's actions in mediating disputes between FOIA requesters 
and federal agencies, we reviewed, among other things, laws addressing 
federal mediation activities, published literature on mediation, and 
the office's documented procedures for mediating disputes. Using 
OGIS's case tracking system, we selected and reviewed the 44 cases 
[Footnote 6] that were initiated in fiscal year 2012 and were 
characterized by the office as involving facilitation, a type of 
mediation. We also reviewed the corresponding paper files documenting 
the actions taken and the results of mediation activities for these 
cases. To determine the reliability of the data in the system, we 
performed steps to ensure the data provided were valid and reviewed 
how data are entered and validated. We tested duplicate records, 
missing values, and out-of-range values. We found the data sources to 
be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

To assess the office's actions to recommend policy changes to Congress 
and the President, we analyzed its documents describing policy 
recommendations that were made to Congress and the President. In 
addition, we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
written responses describing its reviews of OGIS's policy 
recommendations and any applicable OMB guidance, such as the Circular 
A-19[Footnote 7] and we interviewed officials from OMB's Office of 
General Counsel. In addition, to assess OGIS's actions to develop and 
issue guidance and best practices to federal agencies, we analyzed 
documentation on OGIS's agency best practices, case studies, and the 
office's suggestions regarding FOIA implementation. We supplemented 
our analyses with interviews of NARA and OGIS officials. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through 
September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our 
objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Background: 

FOIA established a legal right of access to government information on 
the basis of the principles of openness and accountability in 
government. Prior to passage of the act in 1966, the government 
required an individual or entity to demonstrate a "need to know" 
before being granted the right to examine a federal record. FOIA 
established a "right to know" standard, under which an individual or 
entity could receive access to information held by a federal agency 
without demonstrating a need or reason. The "right to know" standard 
shifted the burden of proof from the individual or entity to the 
government agency holding the information and required the agency to 
provide proper justification when denying a request for access. 

Any person, with a few exceptions, can file a FOIA request, including 
foreign nationals, corporations, and organizations. For example, a 
foreign national can request his or her alien file, and a commercial 
requester, which can include data brokers that file a request on 
behalf of others, may request, among other things, a copy of a 
government contract or grant proposal. In response, the agency holding 
the desired record is required to provide it to the requester (unless 
the record falls within a permitted exemption).[Footnote 8] Generally, 
FOIA allows agencies to collect a fee for searching and duplicating 
records in connection with responding to a request. Apart from 
providing access to records in response to a request, FOIA also 
requires agencies to disclose certain information by publication in 
the Federal Register or electronically (e.g., on the Internet), or by 
making it available in a physical or electronic reading room. 

While FOIA has helped improve public access to government information 
and has been a positive step toward providing more openness in 
government, a March 12, 2007, House committee report accompanying the 
OPEN Government Act[Footnote 9] pointed out that agencies receive 
hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests a year, which has led to slow 
response times, increased backlogs, and costly and time-consuming 
litigation between requesters and the government. As such, according 
to the report, FOIA requesters have argued that they would benefit 
from having access to an ombudsman to provide guidance before, or as 
an alternative to, litigation. 

OGIS Was Established to Help Oversee the Administration of FOIA: 

To help address the concerns surrounding FOIA implementation, the OPEN 
Government Act,[Footnote 10] among other things, established OGIS 
within NARA to: 

* review policies and procedures that agencies have developed to 
administer FOIA; 

* review agency compliance with FOIA requirements; 

* recommend policy changes to Congress and the President to improve 
the administration of FOIA; and: 

* offer mediation services to resolve disputes between individuals or 
entities making FOIA requests and agencies as an non-exclusive 
alternative to litigation. 

OGIS was established within NARA, on September 8, 2009. The office 
operated directly under the Archivist of the United States until March 
7, 2011, when it was moved to Agency Services, which operates under 
the authority of the agency's Chief Operating Officer. According to 
its charter, the mission of Agency Services is to lead NARA's efforts 
in servicing the ongoing records management needs of federal agencies 
and to represent the public's interest in the accountability and 
transparency of these records. OGIS is one of five supporting offices 
under Agency Services, as shown on the organization chart in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Organizational Chart Depicting OGIS within NARA: 

[Refer to PDF for image: Organizational Chart] 

Top level: Archivist of the United States. 

Second level, reporting to Archivist of the United States: 
Office of Chief Operating Officer. 

Third level, reporting to Office of Chief Operating Officer: 
Agency Services: 
* Chief Records Officer; 
* Federal Records Center Program; 
* Information Security Oversight Office; 
* National Declassification Center; 
* Office of Government Information Services. 

Source: National Archives and Records Administration. 

[End of figure] 

[End of figure] 

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., OGIS is led by a director who 
reports to the Executive of Agency Services. As of August 2013, the 
Director was aided by a deputy director, an attorney advisor, two 
management and program analysts, and a staff assistant--for a total of 
six full-time employees. 

Other Federal Agencies Also Have FOIA-Related Responsibilities: 

In addition to OGIS, other federal agencies also have responsibility 
for the oversight and administration of FOIA. Specifically, since it 
was established 30 years ago, the Office of Information Policy within 
the Department of Justice (Justice) has been responsible for 
overseeing the administration of FOIA by encouraging compliance, 
overseeing agencies' implementation of the OPEN Government Act, and 
issuing policy guidance. As such, the office prepares a comprehensive 
guide that addresses various aspects of the act; conducts a variety of 
FOIA-related training programs for personnel across the government; 
and uses attorneys to serve as counselors that provide FOIA 
information, advice, and guidance to government staff and the public 
regarding implementation of the act. In addition, Justice represents 
federal agencies in lawsuits brought by FOIA requesters. 

According to Justice, as of fiscal year 2012, a total of 99 federal 
agencies had responsibility for implementing FOIA. These agencies 
process requests, publish related regulations, and submit annual 
reports through the heads of their agencies to the Attorney General 
that include statistics on their FOIA processing. Further, the OPEN 
Government Act gave agency chief FOIA officers responsibility for 
ensuring agencywide compliance by monitoring implementation throughout 
the agency; recommending changes in policies, practices, staffing, and 
funding; and reviewing and reporting to agency heads and to Justice on 
the agency's performance in implementing FOIA. (These reports are 
referred to as chief FOIA officer reports and are in addition to the 
annual reports that agencies also submit to Justice.) 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Agencies' Efforts to Implement FOIA: 

Over the past 6 years, we have issued several reports on federal 
agencies' implementation of FOIA, including their progress in 
improving FOIA processing and backlog reduction. 

* In 2007,[Footnote 11] we reported on 25 major agencies' plans for 
improving FOIA processing and noted that most of the plans included 
goals and time tables addressing the areas of improvement emphasized 
by Executive Order 13392,[Footnote 12] which set forth a directive for 
a citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA. In particular, the order 
directed agencies to provide requesters with courteous and appropriate 
service and ways to learn about the FOIA process, the status of their 
requests, and the public availability of other agency records. The 
order also instructed agencies to process requests efficiently, 
achieve measurable process improvements (including a reduction in the 
backlog of overdue requests), and reform programs that were not 
producing the appropriate results. However, certain agencies had 
omitted goals in areas where they were already considered to be 
strong. We noted that all the plans focused on making measurable 
improvements and formed a reasonable basis for carrying out the goals 
of the executive order, although the details in a few plans could be 
improved. Thus, among other things, we recommended that selected 
agencies strengthen their improvement plans. The agencies generally 
agreed with our recommendations and took actions to address them. 

* In 2008,[Footnote 13] we reported that, following the emphasis on 
backlog reduction in the executive order and agency improvement plans, 
many agencies had shown progress in decreasing their backlog of 
overdue requests. However, we identified several factors that 
contributed to the requests remaining open and recommended that, among 
other things, Justice provide additional guidance to agencies on 
tracking and reporting overdue requests and planning to meet future 
backlog goals. In response to our recommendation, Justice's Office of 
Information Policy developed guidance on tracking and reporting 
backlogged requests. 

* More recently, in July 2012,[Footnote 14] we reported that four 
agencies with large backlogs had taken actions to decrease their 
backlogs, reduce their use of exemptions, and make their FOIA records 
available to the public by electronic means. We noted, however, that 
not all agency components were ensuring that frequently requested 
records were being made available online. Also, we reported that 
agencies were not always taking advantage of best practices for FOIA 
processing by, for example, using a single tracking system and 
providing requesters with the ability to track the status of their 
requests online. We recommended that the agencies improve the 
management of their FOIA programs by ensuring that actions were taken 
to reduce backlogs and the use of exemptions, improve FOIA libraries, 
and implement technology. Officials from the four agencies agreed or 
generally agreed with the recommendations. 

OGIS Has Assisted Agencies, but Has Not Proactively Reviewed Agencies' 
FOIA Policies, Procedures, and Compliance: 

OGIS has engaged in several activities that, according to its 
officials, were intended to respond to the OPEN Government Act 
requirement that it review federal agencies' FOIA policies, 
procedures, and compliance. Specifically, OGIS has engaged in tasks 
such as making suggestions for improving the clarity and readability 
of agencies' proposed FOIA regulations and notices and offering 
general observations regarding agencies' correspondence. For example, 
in 2010 and 2011, the office reviewed the Federal Register[Footnote 
15] to identify when agencies had submitted FOIA regulations for 
public comment and then offered responses to the requests for comments 
on the proposed regulations. In this regard, OGIS offered comments on 
improving the contents of regulations that had been proposed by 18 
agencies. Among the suggestions that it offered to one or more of 
these agencies were that they: 

* provide requesters with an estimated amount of fees, including a 
breakdown of the fees for the time staff devote to searching, 
reviewing, and/or duplicating records for a FOIA request; 

* add a statement to clarify the difference between a third-party 
request made under FOIA and a first-party request made under the 
Privacy Act; 

* notify requesters in writing when their requests have been referred 
to another agency, and include the part of the request that has been 
referred and the name of the FOIA contact in that agency; and: 

* recognize the important statutory role of the FOIA Public Liaison in 
reducing delays, increasing transparency, and understanding the status 
of requests. 

In addition, as part of its actions taken to review policies and 
procedures, in 2011 and 2012 the office responded to agencies' 
requests in the Federal Register for public comments on Privacy Act 
system of records notices. The office commented on six such requests 
during these 2 years. For example, the office suggested that agencies 
include model language in their system of records notices that would 
allow OGIS to share information with the affected agency as a 
permitted disclosure under the Privacy Act. According to the 
officials, without the model language, OGIS would be required to 
obtain written consent from each requester prior to being able to 
access their records when mediating a dispute. 

Further, through various means (for example, FOIA roundtable meetings, 
website, and blog) in 2012 and 2013, OGIS invited agencies to submit 
FOIA correspondence, such as acknowledgment and close-out letters, for 
its review. According to OGIS, one agency responded to these 
invitations and the office, in turn, made suggestions aimed at 
improving the clarity and readability of the agency's correspondence. 
Specifically, OGIS provided comments to the National Geospatial 
Intelligence Agency on a template for its close-out letter that 
clarified the legal requirements to protect from disclosure, 
information on the location of classified military systems personnel, 
and information on contractor proposals. Beyond this activity, the 
office offered Dispute Resolution Skills training to agencies, 
including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Health and 
Human Services, and, as part of the training, provided instruction on 
improving agency correspondence to requesters. 

Nevertheless, while OGIS has engaged in these specific activities, 
none was a proactive, comprehensive evaluation of federal agencies' 
FOIA policies and procedures. Moreover, the office has not conducted 
any reviews of agencies' compliance with FOIA. Rather, the office has 
generally worked in an ad hoc, reactive manner to respond to Federal 
Register proposals put forth by agencies or to seek opportunities to 
comment or provide training on correspondence and documentation other 
than FOIA policies and procedures. Furthermore, the activities that it 
has undertaken have been limited to engaging with only a small 
fraction of the 99 federal agencies that, according to Justice, have 
responsibility for implementing FOIA. Similarly, while the office 
reported that it has reviewed agencies' annual FOIA reports and Chief 
FOIA Officer reports from Justice's Office of Information Policy 
website to identify best practices on improving FOIA processing, and 
has made general observations about agencies' policies, procedures, 
and compliance with FOIA through the office's mediation case work, 
these actions were not undertaken as part of a specific review of 
agencies' compliance with FOIA, as required by the OPEN Government Act. 

A key factor contributing to the absence of proactive and 
comprehensive reviews of federal agencies' FOIA policies, procedures, 
and compliance by OGIS is that the office has not established a 
structured methodology for conducting such reviews. Our work has 
determined that developing a methodology is critical to conducting 
quality, credible, and useful reviews. Our evaluation guidance states 
that a structured methodology should define, among other things, the 
scope, schedule, criteria, and evaluation questions for conducting the 
reviews.[Footnote 16] OGIS had not defined the scope of work for its 
reviews, to include information on which specific agencies it will 
review, (such as the agencies that receive the largest number of FOIA 
requests) and when it will do so. In addition, the office had not 
established the criteria against which the agencies' policies, 
procedures, and compliance with FOIA requirements would be assessed; 
and it had not developed evaluation questions to be used in conducting 
the reviews. 

The Director of OGIS acknowledged the limitations of the reviews that 
had been conducted, stating that the office had prioritized its 
resources to favor mediation activities. In this regard, the Director 
stated that the staff tasked with providing mediation services should 
function as neutral third parties and be independent from staff tasked 
with reviewing agencies' FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance. 
However, the Director said that, given the small number of staff 
assigned to OGIS, the office has not been able to establish a separate 
team of reviewers. OGIS officials added that the office is in the 
early stages of drafting a methodology for conducting the reviews, but 
that a time frame for when the methodology will be completed has not 
been established. Further, while Agency Services has identified a need 
for additional staff to support OGIS in implementing its mission, it 
has not established a plan that addresses how the office intends to 
staff the FOIA reviews. Industry practices stress the importance of 
analyzing workforce needs and developing a plan of action for 
addressing those needs. Moreover, in September 2012, a report issued 
by the Office of Inspector General at NARA concluded that while OGIS 
was currently able to meet its mission, additional resources would 
allow the office to have a more robust program for conducting the 
reviews.[Footnote 17] The Office of Inspector General recommended that 
the Director of OGIS, through the budget process, define resources 
necessary to better accomplish the office's statutory requirement. As 
of early August 2013, however, OGIS had not yet implemented this 
recommendation. 

Until OGIS completes a methodology, and defines the resources needed 
to accomplish the requirements of the office as the NARA Inspector 
General has recommended, the office will not be positioned to 
effectively execute the responsibilities envisioned for it in 
assisting with this important aspect of FOIA implementation. 

OGIS Is Mediating Disputes, but Lacks Goals and Metrics for Measuring 
Timeliness and Success: 

In response to the OPEN Government Act requirement that it offer 
mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and 
agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation, OGIS defines 
two types of mediation services that it provides to address requests 
for assistance:[Footnote 18] 

* Facilitation: A type of mediation in which an OGIS staff member 
facilitates communication between the requester and the agency, 
helping the parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution without the 
perceived formality or cost of mediation. 

* Ombuds services: Advice and services (other than mediation) offered 
in response to complaints that the office receives. Ombuds services do 
not address the substance of a dispute (such as the exemptions taken), 
but rather, the mechanics of a dispute (such as the status of a 
delayed request). 

OGIS has a documented process for handling the requests that it 
receives. Specifically, when a request is received--by phone, e-mail, 
fax, or electronically through its website--a case file is opened and 
assigned a tracking number in an automated case management system. 
Once a case has been opened, the office goes through a fact-finding 
process to determine what services are called for, such as, helping 
the parties exchange information or suggesting options for resolution. 
For each case, further actions taken by OGIS and the other parties 
involved, as well as any agreements reached, are recorded in the case 
management system. 

During fiscal year 2012, OGIS accepted 855 requests for assistance: 46 
involved facilitation or both facilitation/ombuds services, and 239 
involved only ombuds services. Of the remaining requests, 498 were 
classified by OGIS as a "quick hit"[Footnote 19] and 72 were 
classified as miscellaneous (for example, "administrative closure," 
"no direct action requested," or "request withdrawn.") 

Of the 44 facilitation and facilitation/ombuds services cases that 
OGIS initiated in 2012,[Footnote 20] the office provided mediation for 
30. (Most of the remaining 14 were cases that OGIS did not mediate 
because it agreed with the agency's decision on the FOIA request.) 
Further, among the cases that were mediated, we determined that 22 had 
a positive result, as defined by one or more of the following three 
actions: 

* One or both parties took action or modified their position after 
OGIS's intervention. For example, a requester conducting family 
genealogy research requested from the Social Security Administration, 
a copy of a Social Security form pertaining to a family member. In 
response, the agency sent the form to the requester, but the subject's 
parents' names had been redacted--blacked out--because the Social 
Security Administration does not reveal information about a living 
person and, given their dates of birth, had concluded that the parents 
might still be alive. The requester filed an appeal and provided death 
certificates for the parents, but the appeal was denied. An OGIS 
mediator subsequently contacted a Social Security Administration 
official on the requester's behalf to discuss the denial. After 
reexamining the case, the agency agreed to send an unredacted document 
to the requester. 

* One or both parties indicated increased satisfaction with the 
outcome of the FOIA process as a result of OGIS's mediation. For 
example, a representative of a trade organization, who had requested 
contract data from the Department of Homeland Security, had received 
only part of the information requested. The agency withheld 
substantial information under a FOIA exemption protecting trade 
secrets. The requester subsequently contacted OGIS, and a mediator 
contacted the agency's appeals officer and discussed the relevant case 
law. In response to this action, the agency reconsidered its decision 
and provided the information with only minimal redactions. The 
customer noted that she was "extremely happy with the results of the 
mediation." 

* The issue in dispute was clarified, addressed, or resolved after 
OGIS intervened. For example, a requester asked the Securities and 
Exchange Commission for all its files of a certain type and later 
asked OGIS for help because of a perceived delay in the agency's 
response. A mediator then contacted an official at the agency, who 
explained that the requested files were difficult to retrieve because 
some were paper files that were not indexed and were geographically 
dispersed. The mediator explained this to the requester, who was 
initially unwilling to compromise but was open to an OGIS-facilitated 
discussion with the agency. The agency agreed, and OGIS subsequently 
facilitated a teleconference between the requester and the agency, 
during which the two parties agreed that the requester would file a 
narrower request that the agency could fill promptly. 

Overall, among these 22 cases, 9 involved a denial, in which an agency 
declined to release the requested records; 7 involved a delay, in 
which a requester believed the agency was taking too much time to fill 
a request; and 3 involved fees, where a requester believed the amount 
being charged was excessive or that a fee waiver was applicable. 
[Footnote 21] The other 3 cases involved: a dispute over whether an 
appeal had been submitted in a timely manner, a customer disputing 
that an agency had not found responsive records, and a requester 
wanting results in a different format. 

Also, among the cases that OGIS mediated, we determined that 8 did not 
have a positive result, as explained by the following examples: 

* In four cases, OGIS provided mediation services, but the agency did 
not change its position on refusing to provide the requested 
information. In one case, for example, the agency did not change its 
position that the requester needed to provide a waiver or proof of 
death for the subject of the request in order for the agency to 
process the request. In another example, the agency stood by its 
decision to refer the requester to a publicly available document. 

* In one case, the agency, after its initial meeting with OGIS and the 
requester, was unwilling to continue to meet on matters related to the 
FOIA request. 

* In one case, OGIS held discussions regarding the agency not granting 
the requester free search time as required by FOIA and OMB's guidance. 
The agency did not change its position and the requester pursued 
litigation regarding the matter. 

* In the remaining two cases, OGIS confirmed that the information the 
requesters were seeking was either exempt from disclosure, or the 
record did not exist. For example, in one of these cases, the 
requester had sought a list of active Internal Revenue Service tax-
exempt cases in litigation, but had received a "no records" response 
from the agency. As part of its mediation efforts, OGIS confirmed that 
the agency did not keep the requested information in any of its 
records. 

Of the 14 cases where mediation was not provided, 11 were cases where 
OGIS agreed with the agency's decision to deny a request. For example, 
in one of the cases, a prison inmate requested a copy of the Bureau of 
Prisons Correctional Services Manual, which addresses the operations 
of federal prisons. The bureau withheld the manual under a law 
enforcement exemption, stating that, while there may have been a 
public interest in the material, that interest did not outweigh the 
need to keep order in the prison system and avoid inmates using the 
information to their advantage. The requester then contacted OGIS, and 
the office responded that the agency's actions had been consistent 
with FOIA law and policy and declined to mediate. In another instance, 
a case was not mediated because the agency declined to cooperate with 
OGIS. Further, for the remaining 2 cases, OGIS ultimately determined 
that they were ones in which mediation was not needed. For example, to 
resolve one of the cases, OGIS only needed to explain an agency letter 
to a requester. 

Although it has taken actions to resolve disputes--in many cases 
having positive results through mediation--the office lacks 
performance measures and goals needed to gauge the overall success of 
its mediation services. The Government Performance and Results Act 
Modernization Act of 2010[Footnote 22] requires NARA, like all 
agencies, to develop an annual performance plan that includes 
performance goals for its program activities and accompanying 
performance measures, including timeliness and results-based measures. 
According to the act, the performance goals should be in a 
quantifiable and measurable form to define the level of performance to 
be achieved for program activities each year. Measuring performance 
allows an agency to track the progress it is making toward goals and 
gives managers crucial information on which to base their 
organizational and management decisions. Leading organizations 
recognize that performance measures can create powerful incentives to 
influence organizational and individual behavior. 

However, consistent with its fiscal year 2013 annual report, in which 
the office states that it has no formal metrics for measuring success, 
OGIS has not developed measures and goals for its mediation services. 
While its case management system can track the length of time required 
to handle a particular case, the office currently has no specific 
goals related to timeliness in handling requests for assistance. In 
this regard, in fiscal year 2012, the office had a timeliness goal, 
derived from NARA's overall performance plan, of closing cases within 
34 working days. However, according to the officials, this goal was 
dropped because it was not based on the office's actual experience in 
handling the cases.[Footnote 23] 

OGIS also has no measures or goals pertaining to the results of its 
mediation cases. For example, it has not established criteria for 
determining what constitutes success in a case or a goal for what 
percentage of its cases should have a successful result. OGIS's 
Director said that the office is aware of the need for such measures 
and is making efforts to meet the need. The Director told us that OGIS 
has engaged a consultant to help review its case management system, 
identify reasons for differing case closure times, and help develop 
more measurable milestones. However, OGIS had not implemented measures 
as of mid-August 2013. Further, the office has begun using an online 
questionnaire where its customers can provide anonymous feedback on 
their experiences with OGIS and its staff. While this questionnaire 
may be useful if enough responses are received,[Footnote 24] its value 
as a voluntary, Web-based survey is limited: its respondents are self-
selected, responses are anonymous, and comments cannot be linked to 
specific cases or contexts, thus limiting their usefulness. Until OGIS 
establishes quantifiable goals and measures of success for its 
mediation services, the office will not be positioned to determine how 
effectively it is performing mediation and contributing to the 
resolution of cases that might otherwise have resulted in potentially 
costly litigation or gone unresolved. 

OGIS Has Made Recommendations and Issued Best Practices for Improving 
the Administration of FOIA: 

As required by the OPEN Government Act, OGIS has made recommendations 
to Congress and the President aimed at improving the administration of 
FOIA. These recommendations have largely focused on improving the 
internal coordination of government FOIA operations and areas where 
OGIS's role could be made more effective. In addition, while it has 
not issued specific guidance on FOIA implementation, OGIS has 
collected best practices for improving FOIA processing for federal 
agencies. 

Altogether, OGIS has made nine recommendations aimed at improving the 
FOIA process--five in 2012 and four in 2013. Seven of the 
recommendations were specific to actions that the office believed it 
should take (in certain cases in conjunction with agency partners and 
other stakeholders), while two of the recommendations focused on 
actions to be taken by other federal agencies. 

Specifically, OGIS recommended to Congress and the President actions 
that it had either taken or was planning to take to enhance its own 
role in administering FOIA, as follows: 

* Work to encourage other departments and agencies to partner with it 
to expand dispute resolution training for their FOIA professionals so 
that they can assist their FOIA colleagues in preventing and resolving 
disputes. 

* Work with other agencies to consider how the FOIA web portal 
[hyperlink, https://FOIAonline.regulations.gov/],[Footnote 25] the 
governmentwide FOIA portal, might be useful to them in carrying out 
their statutory responsibilities and use it to accept FOIA requests 
and allow responsive documents to be uploaded and posted for the 
public. 

* Facilitate the coordination of interagency communication for 
governmentwide FOIA requests among agencies by serving as the central 
point-of-contact for agencies in sharing information, and also for 
relaying information to requesters as appropriate. 

* Work with stakeholders from both inside and outside government to 
review the issues surrounding FOIA fees and fee waivers, which remains 
a persistent point of contention administratively and in litigation. 

* Develop, with the Chief Information Officers Council, methods for 
agencies to better handle requesters seeking their own records under 
the Privacy Act to improve how requesters navigate agency processes to 
obtain needed assistance. 

* In conjunction with OMB, create a governmentwide Privacy Act routine-
use procedure to streamline the way in which agencies share with OGIS 
information covered by the act. 

* Work with agencies to streamline the process of requesting 
immigration-related records because of the increased number of 
requests related to these records. 

In addition, OGIS recommended that federal agencies take specific 
actions, as follows: 

* Encourage and support the use of dispute resolution in the agency 
FOIA processes to prevent and resolve disputes administratively and 
avoid litigation. 

* Remind their staff of the importance of FOIA and recognize FOIA as a 
priority (based on the position that many agency employees may be 
unfamiliar with their own responsibilities under the law). 

OGIS officials stated that the recommendations were based on the 
office's ongoing work with federal agencies and members of the public. 
They acknowledged that the office had not compiled other information 
that would be necessary to recommend substantive revisions to 
underlying FOIA policies or otherwise suggest legislative actions to 
Congress and the President. However, such information potentially 
could have been derived if OGIS had taken steps to conduct more 
comprehensive reviews of agencies' FOIA policies, procedures, and 
compliance and had established and implemented results-based measures 
for its mediation services. 

According to its documentation, OGIS submitted the nine 
recommendations over a 2-year period from February 2011 through March 
2013. The officials explained that their submission of these 
recommendations followed periods of interagency review as required 
under the process overseen by OMB. Specifically, they explained that 
OGIS had submitted its first two draft recommendations for review in 
accordance with the OMB Circular A-19[Footnote 26] on February 16, 
2011. These initial recommendations focused on developing, with the 
Chief Information Officers Council, methods for agencies to better 
handle requesters seeking their own records under the Privacy Act and 
in conjunction with OMB, creating a governmentwide Privacy Act routine-
use procedure. Then, over the next 14 months, OMB and NARA had 
periodic discussions regarding the significant number of interagency 
comments that OMB had received on the recommendations. 

Following discussion on the status of the two recommendations at a 
congressional hearing in March 2012,[Footnote 27] OGIS submitted three 
additional recommendations to OMB for review. OMB officials said they 
then worked with OGIS to address interagency comments on the three 
recommendations, as well as the initial two recommendations. 

After OMB completed its review in mid-April 2012, OGIS informed 
Congress[Footnote 28] that its recommendations did not include any 
substantive revisions to the disclosure requirements of FOIA. OGIS 
officials subsequently stated that, as a result of the interagency 
consultation process, OGIS and OMB had agreed that the five 
recommendations could be addressed administratively and did not 
require any legislative action. 

In mid-January 2013, OGIS and OMB officials met to discuss a second 
set of potential recommendations that the office intended to submit. 
The office subsequently submitted four recommendations to OMB for 
Circular A-19 review on March 4, 2013. According to OGIS officials, 
the review of these recommendations was completed on March 12, 2013, 
and the recommendations were provided to Congress on March 13, 2013, 
to support a congressional hearing during Sunshine Week.[Footnote 29] 

OGIS Does Not Issue Guidance, but Disseminates Best Practices for 
Improving FOIA Processing: 

Although OGIS does not issue specific guidance on FOIA 
implementation,[Footnote 30] it collects and shares best practices for 
improving federal agencies' processing of FOIA requests. According to 
OMB, best practices are the processes, practices, and systems 
identified in public and private organizations that work exceptionally 
well and are widely recognized as being helpful in improving an 
organization's performance and efficiency in specific areas. Best 
practices can be based on lessons learned from positive experiences or 
on negative experiences that result in an undesirable outcome. In 
addition, guidance states that the use of best practices is a 
principal component of an organizational culture committed to 
continuous improvement.[Footnote 31] 

Toward this end, OGIS collects best practices for improving FOIA 
processing from several sources, including its reviews of agencies' 
annual FOIA reports and mediation case files, as well as anecdotally 
from persons involved in mediation cases facilitated by the office. 
OGIS publishes best practices related to key FOIA requirements and 
guidance in its annual reports, and on its website [hyperlink, 
https://ogis.archives.gov/] and blog [hyperlink, 
http://blogs.archives.gov/foiablog/]. The website includes a number of 
links describing various best practices specifically for FOIA 
requestors and federal agencies. Table 1 describes examples of the 
best practices OGIS has disseminated. 

Table 1: Examples of OGIS Best Practices for Improving Agencies' 
Implementation of FOIA: 

Selected best practice: Communications and customer service; 
Description: Agencies should post in plain language information about 
fees, fee categories, and fee waivers. Once a FOIA request has been 
received and acknowledged, an agency can continue to practice good 
customer service communication. For example, one approach is to create 
an online system to allow a requester to easily check the status of 
their request. Agencies should provide in writing to the requester the 
tracking number and contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison and 
the FOIA professional assigned to the case as quickly as possible. 

Selected best practice: FOIA database requests; 
Description: Involve the requester early on, particularly if the 
requester is a database expert. Many are willing to share their 
knowledge with agencies to help move the FOIA process forward. Take 
them up on any offers to share their expertise and consider allowing 
them to talk directly with the IT staff to discuss the best approaches 
for responding to their request. 

Selected best practice: Agency FOIA regulations; 
Description: For drafting FOIA regulations, agencies should bring 
attorneys, FOIA processors, records managers, and IT professionals to 
the table. Each will bring a different perspective--plus, a well-
organized team can lighten the load for a single person on a tedious 
but important task. 

Selected best practice: Contacting requesters; 
Description: Contact with requesters need not always be by mail. 
Often, it may be more efficient to contact the requester by e-mail or 
by telephone; these messages can be memorialized in writing later. 

Selected best practice: Tracking requests; 
Description: Provide in writing to the requester the tracking number 
and contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison as quickly as 
possible. 

Source: GAO analysis of OGIS best practices. 

[End of table] 

OGIS officials stated that the office updates its blog at least weekly 
with posts addressing best practices, case studies, and where the 
public and federal agencies can engage in discussions about FOIA 
issues. In addition, OGIS uses other mechanisms to improve the 
administration of FOIA, to include presenting training for FOIA 
professionals; holding conferences with the American Society for 
Access Professionals to share best practices; and, at the start of 
fiscal year 2013, helping to launch the FOIA web portal [hyperlink, 
https://FOIAonline.regulations.gov/]. 

Conclusions: 

Since it was established 4 years ago, OGIS has taken actions to 
implement selected legislative responsibilities, although it has 
fallen short in certain areas. Specifically, while the office has 
suggested improvements to a number of agencies' FOIA regulations and 
system of records notices, it has not completed a methodology for 
proactively reviewing agencies' policies, procedures, and compliance 
with FOIA requirements and a time frame for doing so. As a mediator 
between requesters and federal agencies, OGIS has resolved cases that 
might have otherwise resulted in litigation. However, while we were 
able to identify instances in which its mediation efforts have had 
positive results, the office's overall success in mediating cases is 
difficult to gauge without goals and performance measures. On the 
basis of its reviews of agency policy and procedures, and mediation 
experience, OGIS has made a number of recommendations to Congress and 
the President and shared best practices to help agencies improve the 
administration of FOIA. However, addressing the shortfalls that we 
noted is critical to OGIS effectively complying with its role as 
required by law. 

Recommendations: 

To ensure that OGIS effectively performs its responsibilities under 
FOIA, as amended by the OPEN Government Act, we recommend that the 
Archivist of the United States direct the Executive for Agency 
Services and the Director of OGIS to take the following two actions: 

* Establish a time frame for completing and implementing a methodology 
that defines, among other things, the scope, schedule, criteria, and 
evaluation questions for conducting reviews of federal agencies' FOIA 
policies, procedures, and compliance. 

* Establish performance measures and goals for OGIS's mediation 
services that define success in handling a case and include relevant 
goals for the number of cases handled successfully, as well as goals 
for timely management of cases based on past experience. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided drafts of this report to NARA and OMB for comment. In its 
written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II, NARA expressed 
appreciation for our attention to issues facing OGIS and concurred 
with the two recommendations in the report. NARA also specifically 
discussed actions that it was taking or planned to take related to our 
second recommendation. In particular, the agency stated that OGIS has 
consulted with other mediation and ombudsman offices on how to 
evaluate its services and will continue to do so. NARA added that it 
has been difficult to measure success and that the office's resolution 
of a dispute is dependent on outside factors that are beyond OGIS's 
control, such as the willingness of the parties to participate in 
voluntary mediation services. Further, NARA stated that it appreciated 
our suggestions regarding measures for success and would consider 
these suggestions as the office assesses measures for the upcoming 
fiscal year. 

In addition to the aforementioned written comments, we received 
technical comments, via e-mail, from NARA's Audit Liaison and OMB's 
Audit Liaison, which we have incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees; the Archivist of the United States; Executive for Agency 
Services, Director of OGIS, and other interested parties. Copies of 
this report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site, 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staffs have any questions on the information 
discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or 
melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 
listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Technology Resources Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to assess the actions that the Office of 
Government Information Services (OGIS) has taken to (1) review 
agencies' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policies, procedures, and 
compliance, (2) mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and federal 
agencies, and (3) recommend policy changes to Congress and the 
President, and develop and issue guidance and best practices to 
agencies aimed at improving the administration of FOIA. 

To assess the actions OGIS has taken to review agencies' FOIA 
policies, procedures, and compliance, we analyzed documentation 
describing the office's plans and activities for conducting agency 
FOIA reviews. These included the office's annual reports for fiscal 
years 2011 through 2013, quarterly reports, NARA's annual performance 
plan for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and the office's comments on 
18 proposed agency regulations and six Privacy Act system of records 
notices. We analyzed OGIS's comments on agency FOIA correspondence, 
such as closeout letters, and training materials on improving agency 
correspondence to requesters. We compared the plans and activities to 
our program evaluation guidance[Footnote 32] that focuses on assessing 
the effectiveness of program operations and results. We also analyzed 
OGIS's comments on the proposed agency regulations and compared them 
to the latest version of the agency's regulations to determine whether 
they were incorporated. 

To assess the actions that OGIS has taken to mediate disputes between 
requesters and federal agencies, we reviewed the Administrative 
Dispute Resolution Act of 1996; published literature on mediation and 
alternative dispute resolution; and our prior work on alternative 
dispute resolution. We discussed the office's activities with its 
officials, reviewed its mediation process and definitions, and 
compared them with third-party sources. We attended training on 
dispute resolution that was presented by OGIS. We also reviewed the 
initial results of the office's online customer survey. We then 
selected the 44 cases[Footnote 33] that had been initiated in 2012 and 
that were characterized by OGIS as involving facilitation. We examined 
the corresponding paper case files as well as data from the office's 
automated case tracking system. 

We developed criteria, after discussions with OGIS, for verifying 
whether a case involved mediation and for determining the result of 
the office's mediation efforts. Specifically, we verified that a case 
was an example of mediation if one of the following occurred: 

* Other than the initial contact, OGIS had two or more substantive 
contacts with either party. 

* The office suggested options for changing a position or decision to 
either party. 

* Either party changed a decision or position (e.g. the agency waived 
fees or provided additional documents, or the requester narrowed the 
scope of a request). 

We considered the office's mediation efforts to have had a positive 
result if at least one of the following events occurred: 

* One or both parties took some action or modified their position 
after OGIS's intervention (for example, the agency reduced fees or 
provided further documents). 

* One or both parties indicated increased satisfaction with the 
outcome of the FOIA process as the result of the office's mediation. 

* The issue in dispute was clarified, addressed, or resolved. 

To determine the reliability of data from OGIS's case tracking system, 
we performed basic steps to ensure the data provided were valid and 
reviewed relevant information describing the database. Specifically, 
we tested for duplicate records, missing values, and out-of-range 
values in the data received from OGIS. We assessed the reliability of 
the system used to maintain these data. To determine the reliability 
of the case data, we independently replicated a report generated by 
the software and compared it to documents provided by OGIS to 
determine whether the data matched. Also, we conducted interviews with 
agency officials to gain an understanding of the process by which data 
are entered and validated. Based on the results of these efforts, we 
found the data sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

To assess the office's actions to recommend policy changes to Congress 
and the President, we reviewed documentation describing policy 
recommendations that were made to Congress and the President. We 
analyzed annual reports on the status of the implementation of these 
recommendations. In addition, we reviewed the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) written responses describing its reviews of OGIS's 
policy recommendations, as well as any applicable OMB guidance, such 
as the Circular A-19. We supplemented our analyses with interviews of 
the Director of OGIS, the Acting Executive for Agency Services (the 
NARA organization in which OGIS is located), officials from OMB's 
Office of General Counsel, and other cognizant NARA and OGIS 
officials. To assess OGIS's actions to provide best practices to 
federal agencies, we reviewed documentation of OGIS's agency best 
practices, case studies, and suggestions regarding FOIA included in 
the annual reports, and on the website and blog. We also observed OGIS 
meetings with other agencies, FOIA requesters, and the general public 
to discuss FOIA topics, such as the administration of fees and access 
to records through FOIA libraries. We supplemented our analyses with 
interviews of relevant OGIS officials to discuss the process used to 
identify best practices and measures established to evaluate their use 
by federal agencies. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through 
September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

National Archives: 
Archivist of the United States: 
David S. Ferriero: 
National Archives and Records Administration: 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: 
Washington, DC 20408-0001: 
[hyperlink, http://www.archives.gov] 
T: 202-357-5900: 
F: 202-357-5901: 
davidfirricro@narn.gov: 

27 August 2013: 

Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Technology Team: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
44 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Melvin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report 13-650 titled "Office of 
Government Information Services Has Begun Implementing Its 
Responsibilities, but Further Actions are Needed." We appreciate your 
attention to issues facing our Office of Government Information 
Services (OGIS). The report contains two recommendations for Executive 
Action. NARA concurs with both recommendations. 

The challenge of how to evaluate the success of mediation services is 
not unique to OGIS. Other government ombudsman offices struggle with 
the same issue. OGIS has consulted with other mediation and ombudsman 
offices on how to evaluate its services and it will continue to do so. 
In mediating FOIA disputes, it is difficult to measure success in 
terms of an outcome. Moreover, OGIS's resolution of a dispute is 
dependent on outside factors beyond OGIS's control, such as the 
willingness of the parties to participate in voluntary mediation 
services. 

OGIS has identified performance goals and targets for each year since 
its creation, which are reported in NARA's Performance & 
Accountability Report. NARA annually assesses measurement of its 
programs and develops new measurements as business needs dictate. We 
appreciate the auditor's suggestions regarding measures for success. 
We will consider these suggestions as we assess measures for the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

If you have any questions regarding this memo please contact Jay 
Trainer, Executive for Agency Services, at 301837-0634 or via email at 
jay.trainer@nara.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David S. Ferriero: 
Archivist of the United States: 

Via email to: 
Valerie C. Melvin, MelvinV@gao.gov; 
Cynthia Scott, ScottC@gao.gov; 
Freda Paintsil, PaintsilF@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Valerie C. Melvin, (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report were Cynthia J. Scott (assistant director), Nancy Glover, 
Cynthia Grant, Ashfaq Huda, Alina J. Johnson, Ruben Montes de Oca, 
Freda Paintsil, David Plocher, Glenn Spiegel, and Walter Vance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

[2] The Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National (OPEN) 
Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175 (Dec. 31, 2007). 

[3] 5 U.S.C. § 552a. 

[4] The Privacy Act of 1974 requires agencies to publish system of 
records notices in the Federal Register to describe holdings of 
personal information in covered system of records. 5 U.S.C. § 
552a(e)(4). 

[5] GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2012). 

[6] While 46 cases were initiated in 2012, we included 44 cases in our 
review. One case was omitted because it involved only OGIS and agency 
officials, and a second was omitted because the case was not included 
in the data OGIS provided from which we made our selection. 

[7] Office of Management and Budget, Legislative Coordination and 
Clearance, Circular No. A-19, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 1979). 

[8] Nine specific exemptions can be applied to withhold a requested 
record, for example, classified, confidential commercial, pre-
decisional, privacy, and several types of law enforcement information. 

[9] Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Freedom of 
Information Act Amendments of 2007, House Rep. No. 110-45 (2007). 

[10] Pub. L. No. 110-175 (Dec. 31, 2007). 

[11] GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show 
Importance of Improvement Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-441] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 
2007) and Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show 
Importance of Improvement Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-491T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 
2007). 

[12] Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2005). 

[13] GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Agencies Are Making Progress in 
Reducing Backlog, but Additional Guidance Is Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-344] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 
2008). 

[14] GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Additional Actions Can 
Strengthen Agency Efforts to Improve Management, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-828] (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

[15] Published by NARA, the Federal Register is the federal 
government's official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and 
notices of federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive 
orders and other presidential documents. 

[16] GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2012). 

[17] Office of Inspector General, National Archives and Records 
Administration, Audit of NARA's Office of Government Information 
Services (September 2012). 

[18] OGIS also handles what it calls "quick hits"--requests for 
assistance that can be answered immediately--such as how to file a 
FOIA request or an appeal. 

[19] A quick hit is not considered to be a case, but is entered into 
the case management system. It does not involve mediation services but 
is a request for assistance that can be answered immediately, such as 
a question about how to file a FOIA request or whom to contact at an 
agency to get information about a request. 

[20] While 46 cases were initiated in 2012, we included 44 cases in 
our review. One case was omitted because it involved only OGIS and 
agency officials, and a second was omitted because the case was not 
included in the data OGIS provided from which we made our selection. 

[21] Agencies may charge fees for search and copying, but there are 
exceptions. For example, news media pay reduced or no fees. For all 
requesters, fees may be waived if disclosure of the information is in 
the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly 
to public understanding of the operations or activities of the 
government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the 
requester. 

[22] Pub. L. No. 111-352, (Jan. 4, 2011), 124 Stat. 3866. 

[23] In fact, OGIS reports that its cases were open an average of 89.5 
days in fiscal year 2012. 

[24] OGIS had received only one response in the first 5 months the 
survey was available. 

[25] The website offers requesters one place to submit FOIA requests, 
track their progress, communicate with the processing agency, search 
other requests, access previously released responsive documents, and 
file appeals with participating agencies. 

[26] OMB Circular A-19, Legislative Coordination and Clearance (Sept. 
20, 1979), requires federal agencies to submit to OMB for review 
proposed legislation, testimonies, reports, and other documents they 
intend to submit to Congress. According to the circular, OMB performs 
legislative coordination and clearance functions to (a) assist the 
President in developing a position on legislation, (b) make known the 
administration's position on legislation for the guidance of the 
agencies and information of Congress, (c) assure appropriate 
consideration of the views of all affected agencies, and (d) assist 
the President with respect to action on enrolled bills. According to 
OMB, the length of this review varies depending on the comments 
provided by the agencies. 

[27] The hearing, entitled "The Freedom of Information Act: 
Safeguarding Critical Infrastructure Information and the Public's 
Right to Know," was held on March13, 2012, by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. 

[28] Letter from the Director of OGIS to Chairman Patrick Leahy and 
Ranking Member Charles Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee, Apr. 13, 
2012. 

[29] Sunshine Week is a national initiative to promote a dialogue 
about the importance of open government and freedom of information. 
Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, 
schools, and others interested in the public's right to access to 
information. 

[30] The OPEN Government Act does not require OGIS to issue guidance. 
Justice's Office of Information Policy is responsible for developing, 
coordinating, and implementing policy and guidance under a regulation 
authorizing it to exercise the functions vested in the Attorney 
General by FOIA. 28 C.F.R.0.24. 

[31] Aha, D., Becerra-Fernandez, I., and Weber, R., Categorizing 
Intelligent Lessons Learned Systems, Technical Report AIC-00-005. 
(Washington, D.C.: Naval Research Laboratory, Navy Center for Applied 
Research in Artificial Intelligence. 2000), 63-67. 

[32] GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2012) and Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or 
Explain Program Performance, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-204] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
29, 2000). 

[33] While 46 cases were initiated in 2012, we included 44 cases in 
our review. We omitted two cases: one because it involved only OGIS 
and the agency's FOIA staff, and one because it was not included in 
the data that OGIS provided, and from which we made our selection. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]