This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-491T
entitled 'Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show Importance
of Improvement Plans' which was released on February 15, 2007.
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:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST Wednesday, February
14, 2007:
GAO:
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
Freedom Of Information Act:
Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans:
Statement of Linda d. Koontz, Director:
Information Technology Issues:
GAO-07-491T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-491T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies
must provide the public with access to government information, enabling
them to learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure
proper implementation, the act requires that agencies annually report
specific information about their FOIA operations, such as numbers of
requests received and processed and median processing times. In
addition, a recent Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to
improve their FOIA operations, including decreasing backlogs.
GAO was asked to testify on the results of its study on FOIA processing
and agencies’ improvement plans. The draft report on the study is
currently out for comment at the agencies involved (and is thus subject
to change). For the study, GAO reviewed status and trends of FOIA
processing at 25 major agencies as reflected in annual reports, as well
as the extent to which improvement plans contain the elements
emphasized by the Executive Order. To do so, GAO analyzed the 25
agencies’ annual reports and improvement plans.
What GAO Found:
Based on data in annual reports from 2002 to 2005, the public continued
to submit more requests for information from the federal government
through FOIA. Despite increasing the numbers of requests processed,
many agencies did not keep pace with the volume of requests that they
received. As a result, the number of pending requests carried over from
year to year has been steadily increasing (see figure). Agency reports
also show great variations in the median times to process requests
(less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at
others). However, the ability to determine trends in processing times
is limited by the form in which these times are reported: that is, in
medians only, without averages (that is, arithmetical means) or ranges.
Although medians have the advantage of providing representative numbers
that are not skewed by a few outliers, it is not statistically possible
to combine several medians to develop broader generalizations (as can
be done with arithmetical means). This limitation on aggregating data
impedes the development of broader pictures of FOIA operations, which
could be useful in monitoring efforts to improve processing and reduce
the increasing backlog of requests, as intended by the Executive Order.
The improvement plans submitted by the 25 agencies mostly included
goals and timetables addressing the four areas of improvement
emphasized by the Executive Order: eliminating or reducing any backlog
of FOIA requests; increasing reliance on dissemination of records that
can be made available to the public without the need for a FOIA
request, such as through posting on Web sites; improving communications
with requesters about the status of their requests; and increasing
public awareness of FOIA processing. Most of the plans (20 of 25)
provided goals and timetables in all four areas; some agencies omitted
goals in areas where they considered they were already strong. Although
details of a few plans could be improved (for example, one agency did
not explicitly address areas of improvement other than backlog), all
the plans focus on making measurable improvements and form a reasonable
basis for carrying out the goals of the Executive Order.
Figure: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis; FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
In its draft report, GAO suggests that the Congress consider additions
to the annual reporting requirements and makes recommendations to
enhance selected agency improvement plans, among other things.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-491T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee's
hearing on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
and agency efforts to comply with this important legislation. Generally
speaking, FOIA[Footnote 1] establishes that federal agencies must
provide the public with access to government information, thus enabling
them to learn about government operations and decisions. Specific
requests by the public for information through the act have led to
disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the government, as
well as the identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs,
and serious health hazards.
To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that
agencies provide annual reports on their FOIA operations to the
Attorney General; these reports include information as specified in the
act, such as how many requests were received and processed in the
previous fiscal year, how many requests were pending at the end of the
year, and the median times that agencies or their components took to
process requests.[Footnote 2] In addition, the President issued an
Executive Order in December 2005 that is aimed at improving agencies'
disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.[Footnote 3] Among other
things, this order required each agency to review its FOIA operations
and develop improvement plans;[Footnote 4] by June 14, 2006, each
agency was to submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) summarizing the results of
the agency's review and including a copy of its improvement plan. These
plans were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables,
by which the agency head is to evaluate the agency's success in
implementing the plan.
The Executive Order directs agencies in their FOIA improvement plans to
focus on ways to:
* eliminate or reduce any backlog of requests;
* increase reliance on public dissemination of records including
through Web sites;
* improve communications with requesters about the status of their
requests; and:
* increase public awareness of FOIA processing.
As requested, in my remarks today, I will discuss two topics: (1) the
status of agencies' processing of FOIA requests as reflected in their
annual reports for fiscal years 2002 through 2005, highlighting any
trends in these reports since 2002, and (2) to what extent the agency
FOIA improvement plans contain the elements emphasized by the Executive
Order.
My discussion is based on ongoing work that we performed in response to
a request from the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Finance, and Accountability (House Committee on Government
Reform), for which you are now a co-requester. The draft report on this
work is currently out for comment; accordingly, some of the information
may be revised before the report is finalized.
For the review described in the draft report, we described statistics
on the processing of FOIA requests based on our analysis of annual
report data for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 from 25 major agencies
(herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide). We examined data
from the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus
the Central Intelligence Agency. However, we eliminated one of the 25
agencies--the Department of Agriculture--from our analysis because one
of its major components reported that not all its data were reliable.
As a result, our statistical analysis for this report was based on data
from a total of 24 agencies' annual reports.[Footnote 5]
To determine to what extent the agency plans contain the elements
emphasized by the order, we analyzed the plans for all 25 agencies to
determine whether they addressed each area of improvement that was
emphasized and contained goals and timetables for each.[Footnote 6] We
evaluated the versions of plans submitted as of December 15, 2006. We
also reviewed the Executive Order itself, implementing guidance issued
by OMB and the Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by
Justice, and our past work in this area. A more detailed description of
our scope and methodology is provided in attachment 1.
All work on which this testimony was based was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Based on data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from
2002 to 2005,[Footnote 7] the public continued to submit more requests
for information from the federal government through FOIA. Despite
increasing the numbers of requests processed, many agencies did not
keep pace with the volume of requests that they received. As a result,
the number of pending requests carried over from year to year has been
steadily increasing; further, the rate of increase is growing. Agency
reports also show great variations in the median times to process
requests (less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100
days at others). However, the ability to determine trends in processing
times is limited by the form in which these times are reported: that
is, in medians only, without averages (that is, arithmetical
means)[Footnote 8] or ranges. Although medians have the advantage of
providing representative numbers that are not skewed by a few outliers,
it is not statistically possible to combine several medians to develop
broader generalizations (as can be done with arithmetical
means).[Footnote 9] This limitation on aggregating data impedes the
development of broader pictures of FOIA operations, which could be
useful in monitoring efforts to improve processing and reduce the
increasing backlog of requests, as intended by the Executive Order.
Finally, in the absence of a requirement that data from the annual
reports be summarized or aggregated (a function that the Department of
Justice, in its FOIA oversight role, has performed in the past), the
public and the Congress have no consistent means of obtaining a
governmentwide picture of FOIA processing.
The 25 agencies submitted improvement plans that mostly included goals
and timetables addressing the four areas of improvement emphasized by
the Executive Order. Based on the results of agencies' reviews of their
FOIA operations, the plans also included other improvement activities
(such as improving automation and increasing staff training) that are
expected to contribute to achieving the goals of the Executive Order.
Out of 25 plans, 20 provided goals and timetables in all four areas. In
some cases, agencies did not set goals for a given area because they
determined that they were already strong in that area. For the first
area of improvement, reducing backlog, all agencies with reported
backlog planned activities aimed at such reduction, and (with minor
exceptions)[Footnote 10] all included both measurable goals and
milestones. Except for one department, agencies also generally set
milestones for the other areas of improvement emphasized by the
Executive Order (that is, increasing public dissemination, improving
status communications, and increasing public awareness of FOIA
processing); for example, to increase public awareness, agencies
generally planned to ensure that their FOIA reference guides were
comprehensive and up to date. The exception was the Department of the
Treasury, whose review and plan addressed only activities to reduce
backlog, omitting the other three areas of improvement.
In our draft report, we suggest that the Congress consider improving
the usefulness of the agency annual FOIA reports by requiring agencies
to report additional statistics. We are also recommending that Justice
provide aggregated statistics and summaries of the annual reports and
that selected agencies enhance their improvement plans.
Background:
FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and
information, on the basis of the principles of openness and
accountability in government. Before the act (originally enacted in
1966), an individual seeking access to federal records had faced the
burden of establishing a right to examine them. FOIA established a
"right to know" standard for access, instead of a "need to know," and
shifted the burden of proof from the individual to the government
agency seeking to deny access.
FOIA provides the public with access to government information either
through "affirmative agency disclosure"--publishing information in the
Federal Register or the Internet, or making it available in reading
rooms--or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public
requests for disclosure of records are the best known type of FOIA
disclosure. Any member of the public may request access to information
held by federal agencies, without showing a need or reason for seeking
the information.
Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act
prescribes nine specific categories of information that are exempt from
disclosure: for example, trade secrets and certain privileged
commercial or financial information, certain personnel and medical
files, and certain law enforcement records or information (attachment
II provides the complete list). In denying access to material, agencies
may cite these exemptions. The act requires agencies to notify
requesters of the reasons for any adverse determination (that is, a
determination not to provide records) and grants requesters the right
to appeal agency decisions to deny access.
In addition, agencies are required to meet certain time frames for
making key determinations: whether to comply with requests (20 business
days from receipt of the request), responses to appeals of adverse
determinations (20 business days from receipt of the appeal), and
whether to provide expedited processing of requests (10 calendar days
from receipt of the request). Congress did not establish a statutory
deadline for making releasable records available, but instead required
agencies to make them available promptly.
The FOIA Process at Federal Agencies:
Although the specific details of processes for handling FOIA requests
vary among agencies, the major steps in handling a request are similar
across the government. Agencies receive requests, usually in writing
(although they may accept requests by telephone or electronically),
which can come from any organization or member of the public. Once
received, the request goes through several phases, which include
initial processing, searching for and retrieving responsive records,
preparing responsive records for release, approving the release of the
records, and releasing the records to the requester. Figure 1 is an
overview of the process, from the receipt of a request to the release
of records.
Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of figure]
During the initial processing phase, a request is logged into the
agency's FOIA system, and a case file is started. The request is then
reviewed to determine its scope, estimate fees, and provide an initial
response to the requester (in general, this simply acknowledges receipt
of the request). After this point, the FOIA staff begins its search to
retrieve responsive records. This step may include searching for
records from multiple locations and program offices. After potentially
responsive records are located, the documents are reviewed to ensure
that they are within the scope of the request.
During the next two phases, the agency ensures that appropriate
information is to be released under the provisions of the act. First,
the agency reviews the responsive records to make any redactions based
on the statutory exemptions. Once the exemption review is complete, the
final set of responsive records is turned over to the FOIA office,
which calculates appropriate fees, if applicable. Before release, the
redacted responsive records are then given a final review, possibly by
the agency's general counsel, and then a response letter is generated,
summarizing the agency's actions regarding the request. Finally, the
responsive records are released to the requester.
Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for
specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the
appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive
processing, depending on their complexity, the volume of information
involved, the need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that
have relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information,
the need for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the
responsive material, the need to communicate with the requester about
the scope of the request, and the need to communicate with the
requester about the fees that will be charged for fulfilling the
request (or whether fees will be waived).[Footnote 11]
Specific details of agency processes for handling requests vary,
depending on the agency's organizational structure and the complexity
of the requests received. While some agencies centralize processing in
one main office, other agencies have separate FOIA offices for each
agency component and field office. Agencies also vary in how they allow
requests to be made. Depending on the agency, requesters can submit
requests by telephone, fax, letter, or e-mail or through the Web. In
addition, agencies may process requests in two ways, known as
"multitrack" and "single track." Multitrack processing involves
dividing requests into two groups: (1) simple requests requiring
relatively minimal review, which are placed in one processing track,
and (2) more voluminous and complex requests, which are placed in
another track. In contrast, single-track processing does not
distinguish between simple and complex requests. With single-track
processing, agencies process all requests on a first-in/first-out
basis. Agencies can also process FOIA requests on an expedited basis
when a requester has shown a compelling need or urgency for the
information.
As agencies process FOIA requests, they generally place them in one of
four possible disposition categories: grants, partial grants, denials,
and "not disclosed for other reasons." These categories are defined as
follows:
* Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in full.
* Partial grants: Agency decisions to withhold some records in whole or
in part, because such information was determined to fall within one or
more exemptions.
* Denials: Agency decisions not to release any part of the requested
records because all information in the records is determined to be
exempt under one or more statutory exemptions.
* Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release
requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than
statutory exemptions from disclosing records. The categories and
definitions of these "other" reasons for nondisclosure are shown in
table 1.
Table 1: "Other" Reasons for Nondisclosure:
Category: No records;
Definition: The agency searched and found no record responsive to the
request.
Category: Referrals;
Definition: The agency referred records responsive to the request to
another agency.
Category: Request withdrawn;
Definition: The requestor withdrew the request.
Category: Fee-related reasons;
Definition: The requestor refused to commit to pay fees (or other
reasons related to fees).
Category: Records not reasonably described;
Definition: The requestor did not describe the records sought with
sufficient specificity to allow them to be located with a reasonable
amount of effort.
Category: Not a proper FOIA request;
Definition: The request was not a FOIA request for one of several
procedural reasons.
Category: Not an agency record;
Definition: The requested document was not within the agency's control.
Category: Duplicate request;
Definition: The request was submitted more than once by the same
requestor.
Source: Department of Justice.
[End of table]
When a FOIA request is denied in full or in part, or the requested
records are not disclosed for other reasons, the requester is entitled
to be told the reason for the denial, to appeal the denial, and to
challenge it in court.
The Privacy Act Also Provides Individuals with Access Rights:
In addition to FOIA, the Privacy Act of 1974[Footnote 12] includes
provisions granting individuals the right to gain access to and correct
information about themselves held by federal agencies. Thus the Privacy
Act serves as a second major legal basis, in addition to FOIA, for the
public to use in obtaining government information. The Privacy Act also
places limitations on agencies' collection, disclosure, and use of
personal information.
Although the two laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the
Privacy Act permit individuals to seek access to records about
themselves--known as "first-party" access. Depending on the individual
circumstances, one law may allow broader access or more extensive
procedural rights than the other, or access may be denied under one act
and allowed under the other. Consequently, the Department of Justice's
Office of Information and Privacy issued guidance that it is "good
policy for agencies to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA
requests (as well as possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of
whether the FOIA is cited in a requester's letter." This guidance was
intended to help ensure that requesters receive the fullest possible
response to their inquiries, regardless of which law they cite.
In addition, Justice guidance for the annual FOIA report directs
agencies to include Privacy Act requests (that is, first-party
requests) in the statistics reported. According to the guidance, "A
Privacy Act request is a request for records concerning oneself; such
requests are also treated as FOIA requests. (All requests for access to
records, regardless of which law is cited by the requester, are
included in this report.)"
Although FOIA and the Privacy Act can both apply to first-party
requests, these may not always be processed in the same way as
described earlier for FOIA requests. In some cases, little review and
redaction (see fig. 1) is required, for example, for a request for
one's own Social Security benefits records. In contrast, various
degrees of review and redaction could be required for other types of
first-party requests: for example, files on security background checks
would need review and redaction before being provided to the person who
was the subject of the investigation.
Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation:
OMB and the Department of Justice both have roles in the implementation
of FOIA. Under various statutes, including the Paperwork Reduction
Act,[Footnote 13] OMB exercises broad authority for coordinating and
administering various aspects of governmentwide information policy.
FOIA specifically requires OMB to issue guidelines to "provide for a
uniform schedule of fees for all agencies."[Footnote 14] OMB issued
this guidance in April 1987.[Footnote 15]
The Department of Justice oversees agencies' compliance with FOIA and
is the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Specifically,
Justice's requirements under the act are to:
* make agencies' annual FOIA reports available through a single
electronic access point and notify Congress as to their availability;
* in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required annual
agency reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a
similar format; and:
* submit an annual report on FOIA litigation and the efforts undertaken
by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy
has lead responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal
agencies on FOIA issues. This office first issued guidelines for agency
preparation and submission of annual reports in the spring of 1997. It
also periodically issues additional guidance on annual reports as well
as on compliance, provides training, and maintains a counselors service
to provide expert, one-on-one assistance to agency FOIA staff. Further,
the Office of Information and Privacy also makes a variety of FOIA and
Privacy Act resources available to agencies and the public via the
Justice Web site and on-line bulletins (available at [Hyperlink,
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html]).
Annual FOIA Reports Were Established by 1996 Amendments:
In 1996, the Congress amended FOIA to provide for public access to
information in an electronic format (among other purposes). These
amendments, referred to as e-FOIA, also required that agencies submit a
report to the Attorney General on or before February 1 of each year
that covers the preceding fiscal year and includes information about
agencies' FOIA operations.[Footnote 16] The following are examples of
information that is to be included in these reports:
* number of requests received, processed, and pending;
* median number of days taken by the agency to process different types
of requests;
* determinations made by the agency not to disclose information and the
reasons for not disclosing the information;
* disposition of administrative appeals by requesters;
* information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA requests;
and:
* full-time-equivalent staffing information.
In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney General,
agencies are to make them available to the public in electronic form.
The Attorney General is required to make all agency reports available
on line at a single electronic access point and report to Congress no
later than April 1 of each year that these reports are available in
electronic form. (This electronic access point is
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_6.html.)
In 2001, in response to a congressional request, we prepared the first
in a series of reports on the implementation of the 1996 amendments to
FOIA, starting from fiscal year 1999.[Footnote 17] In these reviews, we
examined the contents of the annual reports for 25 major agencies
(shown in table 2).[Footnote 18] They include the 24 major agencies
covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, as well as the Central
Intelligence Agency and, until 2003, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). In 2003, the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which incorporated FEMA, led to a shift in some FOIA
requests from agencies affected by the creation of the new department,
but the same major component entities are reflected in all the years
reviewed.
Table 2: Agencies Reviewed:
Agency: Agency for International Development;
Abbreviation: AID.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency;
Abbreviation: CIA.
Agency: Department of Agriculture[A];
Abbreviation: USDA.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Abbreviation: DOC.
Agency: Department of Defense;
Abbreviation: DOD.
Agency: Department of Education;
Abbreviation: ED.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Abbreviation: DOE.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Abbreviation: HHS.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security[B];
Abbreviation; DHS.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security[B]: Federal Emergency
Management Agency[B];
Abbreviations: FEMA.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Abbreviation: HUD.
Agency: Department of the Interior;
Abbreviations: DOI.
Agency: Department of Justice;
Abbreviation: DOJ.
Agency: Department of Labor;
Abbreviation: DOL.
Agency: Department of State;
Abbreviation: State.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Abbreviation: Treas.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
Abbreviation: DOT.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Abbreviation: VA.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Abbreviation: EPA.
Agency: General Services Administration;
Abbreviation: GSA.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Abbreviation: NASA.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Abbreviation: NSF.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Abbreviation; NRC.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Abbreviation: OPM.
Agency: Small Business Administration;
Abbreviation: SBA.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Abbreviation: SSA.
Source: GAO.
[A] USDA was not included in our statistical analysis for this report
because data from one of its major components were found to be
unreliable.
[B] FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, FEMA was part of DHS.
[End of table]
Our previous reports included descriptions of the status of reported
FOIA implementation, including any trends revealed by comparison with
earlier years. We noted general increases in requests received and
processed, as well as growing numbers of pending requests carried over
from year to year.
In addition, our 2001 report disclosed that data quality issues limited
the usefulness of agencies' annual FOIA reports and that agencies had
not provided online access to all the information required by the act
as amended in 1996. We therefore recommended that the Attorney General
direct the Department of Justice to improve the reliability of data in
the agencies' annual reports by providing guidance addressing the data
quality issues we identified and by reviewing agencies' report data for
completeness and consistency. We further recommended that the Attorney
General direct the department to enhance the public's access to
government records and information by encouraging agencies to make all
required materials available electronically. In response, the
Department of Justice issued supplemental guidance, addressed reporting
requirements in its training programs, and continued reviewing
agencies' annual reports for data quality. Justice also worked with
agencies to improve the quality of data in FOIA annual reports.
Executive Order Required Agencies to Take Several Actions to Improve
FOIA Operations:
On December 14, 2005, the President issued an Executive Order setting
forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA
administration.[Footnote 19] Briefly, FOIA requesters are to receive
courteous and appropriate services, including ways to learn about the
status of their requests and the agency's response, and agencies are to
provide ways for requesters and the public to learn about the FOIA
process and publicly available agency records (such as those on Web
sites). In addition, agency FOIA operations are to be results oriented:
agencies are to process requests efficiently, achieve measurable
improvements in FOIA processing, and reform programs that do not
produce appropriate results.
To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that
agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their FOIA
programs, and that agencies establish Requester Service Centers and
Public Liaisons to ensure appropriate communication with requesters.
The Chief FOIA Officers were directed to conduct reviews of the
agencies' FOIA operations and develop improvement plans to ensure that
FOIA administration was in accordance with applicable law as well as
with the policy set forth in the order. By June 2006, agencies were to
submit reports that included the results of their reviews and copies of
their improvement plans. The order also instructed the Attorney General
to issue guidance on implementation of the order's requirements for
agencies to conduct reviews and develop plans. Finally, the order
instructed agencies to report on their progress in implementing their
plans and meeting milestones as part of their annual reports for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, and required agencies to account for any
milestones missed.
In April 2006, the Department of Justice posted guidance on
implementation of the order's requirements for FOIA reviews and
improvement plans.[Footnote 20] This guidance suggested a number of
areas of FOIA administration that agencies might consider in conducting
their reviews and developing improvement plans. (Examples of some of
these areas are automated tracking capabilities, automated processing,
receiving/responding to requests electronically, forms of communication
with requesters, and systems for handling referrals to other agencies.)
To encourage consistency, the guidance also included a template for
agencies to use to structure the plans and to report on their reviews
and plans.[Footnote 21] The improvement plans are posted on the Justice
Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/agency_improvement.html.
In a July 2006 testimony, we provided preliminary results of our
analyses of the improvement plans for the 25 agencies in our review
that were submitted as of the end of June; in our testimony we focused
on how the plans addressed reducing or eliminating backlog.[Footnote
22] We testified that a substantial number of plans did not include
measurable goals and timetables that would allow agencies to measure
and evaluate the success of their plans. Several of the plans were
revised in light of our testimony, as well as in response to feedback
to agencies from the Department of Justice in its FOIA oversight role.
Status of FOIA Processing Appears Similar to Previous Years, but
Limitations in Annual Report Data Present Challenges:
The data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 2002
to 2005 reveal a number of general trends. (Data from USDA are omitted
from our statistical analysis, because we determined that data from a
major USDA component were not reliable.)[Footnote 23] For example, the
public continued to submit more requests for information from the
federal government through FOIA, but many agencies, despite increasing
the numbers of requests processed, did not keep pace with this
increased volume. As a result, the number of pending requests carried
over from year to year has been steadily increasing. However, our
ability to make generalizations about processing time is limited by the
type of statistic reported (that is, the median). Taking steps to
improve the accuracy and form of annual report data could provide more
insight into FOIA processing.
Not All Data from USDA's Farm Service Agency Are Reliable, but Its
Improvement Plan Provides Opportunity to Address This Weakness:
We omitted data from USDA's annual FOIA report because we determined
that not all these data were reliable. Although some USDA components
expressed confidence in their data, one component, the Farm Service
Agency, did not. According to this agency's FOIA Officer, portions of
the agency's data in annual reports were not accurate or complete. This
is a significant deficiency, because the Farm Service Agency reportedly
processes over 80 percent of the department's total FOIA requests.
Currently, FOIA processing for the Farm Service Agency is highly
decentralized, taking place in staff offices in Washington, D.C., and
Kansas City, 50 state offices, and about 2,350 county offices. The
agency FOIA officer told us that she questioned the completeness and
accuracy of data supplied by the county offices. This official stated
that some of the field office data supplied for the annual report were
clearly wrong, leading her to question the systems used to record
workload data at field offices and the field office staff's
understanding of FOIA requirements. She attributed this condition to
the agency's decentralized organization and to lack of management
attention, resources, and training. Lacking accurate data hinders the
Farm Service Agency from effectively monitoring and managing its FOIA
program.
The Executive Order's requirement to develop an improvement plan
provides an opportunity for the Farm Service Agency to address its data
reliability problems. More specifically, Justice's guidance on
implementing the Executive Order refers to the need for agencies to
explore improvements in their monitoring and tracking systems and staff
training. USDA has developed an improvement plan that includes
activities to improve FOIA processing at the Farm Service Agency that
are relevant to the issues raised by the Farm Service Agency's FOIA
Officer, including both automation and training. The plan sets goals
for ensuring that all agency employees who process or retrieve
responsive records are trained in the necessary FOIA duties, as well as
for determining the type of automated tracking to be implemented.
According to the plan, an electronic tracking system is needed to track
requests, handle public inquiries regarding request status, and prepare
a more accurate annual FOIA report. In addition, the Farm Service
Agency plans to determine the benefit of increased centralization of
FOIA request processing.
However, the plan does not directly address improvements to data
reliability. If USDA does not also plan for activities, measures, and
milestones to improve data reliability, it increases the risk that the
Farm Service Agency will not produce reliable FOIA statistics, which
are important for program oversight and meeting the act's goal of
providing visibility into government FOIA operations.
Except for SSA, Increases in Requests Received and Processed Are
Generally Slowing:
The numbers of FOIA requests received and processed continue to rise,
but except for one case--SSA--the rate of increase has flattened in
recent years. For SSA, we present statistics separately because the
agency reported an additional 16 million requests in 2005, dwarfing
those for all other agencies combined, which together total about 2.6
million. SSA attributed this rise to an improvement in its method of
counting requests and stated that in previous years, these requests
were undercounted. Further, all but about 38,000 of SSA's over 17
million requests are simple requests for personal information by or on
behalf of individuals.
Figure 2 shows total requests reported governmentwide for fiscal years
2002 through 2005, with SSA's share shown separately.[Footnote 24] This
figure shows the magnitude of SSA's contribution to the whole FOIA
picture, as well as the scale of the jump from 2004 to 2005.
Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years
2002-2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[end of figure]
Figure 3 presents statistics omitting SSA on a scale that allows a
clearer view of the rate of increase in FOIA requests received and
processed in the rest of the government. As this figure shows, when
SSA's numbers are excluded, the rate of increase is modest and has been
flattening: For the whole period (fiscal years 2002 to 2005), requests
received increased by about 29 percent, and requests processed
increased by about 27 percent. Most of this rise occurred from fiscal
years 2002 to 2003: about 28 percent for requests received, and about
27 percent for requests processed. In contrast, from fiscal year 2004
to 2005, the rise was much less: about 3 percent for requests received,
and about 2 percent for requests processed.
Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Omitting
SSA, Fiscal Years 2002-2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of Figure]
According to SSA, the increases that the agency reported in fiscal year
2005 can be attributed to an improvement in its method of counting a
category of requests it calls "simple requests handled by non-FOIA
staff." From fiscal year 2002 to 2005, SSA's FOIA reports have
consistently shown significant growth in this category, which has
accounted for the major portion of all SSA requests reported (see table
3). In each of these years, SSA has attributed the increases in this
category largely to better reporting, as well as actual increases in
requests.
Table 3: Comparison of SSA's Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff
to Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005:
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total requests received: 17,257,886;
Total requests processed: 17,262,315;
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 17,223,713;
Percentage of total processed: 99.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total requests received: 1,453,619;
Total requests processed: 1,450,493;
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 1,270,512;
Percentage of total processed: 87.6.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total requests received: 705,280;
Total requests processed: 704,941;
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 678,849;
Percentage of total processed: 96.3.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total requests received: 268,488;
Total requests processed: 292,884;
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 245,877;
Percentage of total processed: 84.0.
Sources: SSA FOIA reports (self-reported data), GAO analysis.
[End of table]
SSA describes requests in this category as typically being requests by
individuals for access to their own records, as well as requests in
which individuals consent for SSA to supply information about
themselves to third parties (such as insurance and mortgage companies)
so that they can receive housing assistance, mortgages, disability
insurance, and so on.[Footnote 25] According to SSA's FOIA report,
these requests are handled by personnel in about 1,500 locations in
SSA, including field and district offices and teleservice
centers.[Footnote 26] Such requests are almost always granted,[Footnote
27] according to SSA, and most receive immediate responses. SSA has
stated that it does not keep processing statistics (such as median days
to process) on these requests, which it reports separately from other
FOIA requests (for which processing statistics are kept). However,
officials say that these are typically processed in a day or less.
According to SSA officials, they included information on these requests
in their annual reports because Justice guidance instructs agencies to
treat Privacy Act requests (requests for records concerning oneself) as
FOIA requests and report them in their annual reports.[Footnote 28] In
addition, SSA officials said that their automated systems make it
straightforward to capture and report on these simple requests.
According to SSA, in fiscal year 2005, the agency began to use
automated systems to capture the numbers of requests processed by non-
FOIA staff, generating statistics automatically as requests were
processed; the result, according to SSA, is a much more accurate count.
Besides SSA, agencies reporting large numbers of requests received were
the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as shown in
table 4. The rest of agencies combined account for only about 5 percent
of the total requests received (if SSA's simple requests handled by non-
FOIA staff are excluded). Table 4 presents, in descending order of
request totals, the numbers of requests received and percentages of the
total (calculated with and without SSA's statistics on simple requests
handled by non-FOIA staff).
Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for Image Table did not compute]
Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).
Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. USDA data have been omitted, as
data from a major USDA component were determined to be unreliable.
[End of table]
Most Requests Are Granted in Full:
Most FOIA requests in 2005 were granted in full, with relatively few
being partially granted, denied, or not disclosed for other reasons
(statistics are shown in table 5). This generalization holds with or
without SSA's inclusion. The percentage of requests granted in full was
about 87 percent, which is about the same as in previous years.
However, if SSA's numbers are included, the proportion of grants
dominates the other categories--raising this number from 87 percent of
the total to 98 percent. This is to be expected, since SSA reports that
it grants the great majority of its simple requests handled by non-FOIA
staff, which make up the bulk of SSA's statistics.
Table 5: Disposition of Processed Requests for Fiscal Year 2005:
Disposition; Full grants;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 2,206,515;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 87.1;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 19,466,907;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 98.3.
Disposition; Partial grants;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 102,079;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 4.0;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 102,354;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.5.
Disposition: Denial;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 19,864;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 0.8;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 20,318;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.1.
Disposition; Not disclosed for other reasons;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 204,491;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 8.1;
Statistics including SSA: Number: 205,685;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 1.0.
Total;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 2,532,949;
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: [Empty];
Statistics including SSA: Number: 19,795,264;
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: [Empty].
Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).
[A] We exclude all SSA statistics for this comparison rather than
omitting only simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff, because SSA's
report does not break out this category in its statistics on
disposition.
Note: USDA data have been omitted, as data from a major USDA component
were determined to be unreliable. Percentages do not add up to 100
percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
Three of the seven agencies that handled the largest numbers of
requests (HHS, SSA, and VA; see table 4) also granted the largest
percentages of requests in full, as shown in figure 4. Figure 4 shows,
by agency, the disposition of requests processed: that is, whether
granted in full, partially granted, denied, or "not disclosed for other
reasons" (see table 1 for a list of these reasons).
Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency (Fiscal Year
2005):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
Note: Abbreviations are shown in table 2. USDA data have been omitted,
as data from a major USDA component were determined to be unreliable.
[End of figure]
As the figure shows, the numbers of fully granted requests varied
widely among agencies in fiscal year 2005. Six agencies made full
grants of requested records in over 80 percent of the cases they
processed (besides the three already mentioned, these include Energy,
OPM, and SBA). In contrast, 13 of 24 made full grants of requested
records in less than 40 percent of their cases, including 3 agencies
(CIA, NSF, and State) that made full grants in less than 20 percent of
cases processed.
This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been
evident in prior years as well.[Footnote 29] In many cases, the
variance can be accounted for by the types of requests that different
agencies process. For example, as discussed earlier, SSA grants a very
high proportion of requests because they are requests for personal
information about individuals that are routinely made available to or
for the individuals concerned. Similarly, VA routinely makes medical
records available to individual veterans, and HHS also handles large
numbers of Privacy Act requests. Such requests are generally granted in
full. Other agencies, on the other hand, receive numerous requests
whose responses must routinely be redacted. For example, NSF reported
in its annual report that most of its requests (an estimated 90
percent) are for copies of funded grant proposals. The responsive
documents are routinely redacted to remove personal information on
individual principal investigators (such as salaries, home addresses,
and so on), which results in high numbers of "partial grants" compared
to "full grants."
Processing Times Vary, but Broad Generalizations Are Limited:
For 2005, the reported time required to process requests (by track)
varied considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median
processing times for fiscal year 2005. For agencies that reported
processing times by component rather than for the agency as a whole,
the table indicates the range of median times reported by the agency's
components.
Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by
Track:
Agency: AID;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 55;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 34.
Agency: CIA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 7;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 68;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited --.
Agency: DHS;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 16-61;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 3-242;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-45.
Agency: DOC;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 12;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 40;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 8.
Agency: DOD;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 16;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 85;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: DOE;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 5-106;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 10-170;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-12.
Agency: DOI;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-43;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 28-89;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-15.
Agency: DOJ;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 0-139;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 12-863;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: DOL: 2-185.
Agency: DOL;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 6-30;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14-60;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-18.
Agency: DOT;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 1-30;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 20-134;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 5-30.
Agency: ED;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 35;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 66;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 24.
Agency: EPA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 13-32;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 4-166;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 8-109.
Agency: GSA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: HHS;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 10-26;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 60-370;
Type of request processing track: Single: 5-173;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 14-158.
Agency: HUD;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 21-65;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 35-160;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 9-70.
Agency: NASA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 19;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 49;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 15.
Agency: NRC;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 12;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 75;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 20.
Agency: NFS;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 14;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: OPM;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 14;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1.
Agency: SBA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: --;
Type of request processing track: Single: 7;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: --.
Agency: SSA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 15;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 39;
Type of request processing track: Single: 10;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 17.
Agency: State;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 14;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 142;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 136.
Agency: Treas;
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-86;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 3-251;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1.
Agency: VA;
Type of request processing track: Simple: --;
Type of request processing track: Complex: 1-60;
Type of request processing track: Single: --;
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-10.
Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2005 (self-reported data).
Note: For agencies that reported processing times by component, the
table indicates the range of reported component median times. A dash
indicates that the agency did not report any median time for a given
track in a given year. USDA data have been omitted, as data from a
major USDA component were determined to be unreliable.
[End of table]
As the table shows, seven agencies had components that reported
processing simple requests in less than 10 days (these components are
parts of the CIA, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation,
and the Treasury); for each of these agencies, the lower value of the
reported ranges is less than 10. On the other hand, median time to
process simple requests is relatively long at some organizations (for
example, components of Energy and Justice, as shown by median ranges
whose upper end values are greater than 100 days).
For complex requests, the picture is similarly mixed. Components of
four agencies (EPA, DHS, the Treasury, and VA) reported processing
complex requests quickly--with a median of less than 10 days. In
contrast, other components of several agencies (DHS, Energy, EPA, HHS,
HUD, Justice, State, Transportation, and the Treasury) reported
relatively long median times to process complex requests, with median
days greater than 100.
Six agencies (AID, HHS, NSF, OPM, SBA, and SSA) reported using single-
track processing. The median processing times for single-track
processing varied from 5 days (at an HHS component) to 173 days (at
another HHS component).
Our ability to make further generalizations about FOIA processing times
is limited by the fact that, as required by the act, agencies report
median processing times only and not, for example, arithmetic means
(the usual meaning of "average" in everyday language). To find an
arithmetic mean, one adds all the members of a list of numbers and
divides the result by the number of items in the list. To find the
median, one arranges all the values in the list from lowest to highest
and finds the middle one (or the average of the middle two if there is
no one middle number). Thus, although using medians provides
representative numbers that are not skewed by a few outliers, they
cannot be summed. Deriving a median for two sets of numbers, for
example, requires knowing all numbers in both sets. Only the source
data for the medians can be used to derive a new median, not the
medians themselves.
As a result, with only medians it is not statistically possible to
combine results from different agencies to develop broader
generalizations, such as a governmentwide statistic based on all agency
reports, statistics from sets of comparable agencies, or an agencywide
statistic based on separate reports from all components of the agency.
In rewriting the FOIA reporting requirements in 1996, legislators
declared an interest in making them "more useful to the public and to
Congress, and [making] the information in them more
accessible."[Footnote 30] However, the limitation on aggregating data
imposed by the use of medians alone impedes the development of broader
pictures of FOIA operations. A more complete picture would be given by
the inclusion of other statistics based on the same data that are used
to derive medians, such as means and ranges. Providing means along with
the median would allow more generalizations to be drawn, and providing
ranges would complete the picture by adding information on the outliers
in agency statistics. More complete information would be useful for
public accountability and for effectively managing agency FOIA
programs, as well as for meeting the act's goal of providing visibility
into government FOIA operations.
Agency Pending Cases Continue to Increase:
In addition to processing greater numbers of requests, many agencies
(10 of 24) also reported that their numbers of pending cases--requests
carried over from one year to the next--have increased since 2002. In
2002, pending requests governmentwide were reported to number about
138,000, whereas in 2005, about 200,000--45 percent more--were
reported. In addition, the rate of increase grew in fiscal year 2005,
rising 24 percent from fiscal year 2004, compared to 13 percent from
2003 to 2004. Figure 5 shows these results, illustrating the
accelerating rate at which pending cases have been increasing.
These statistics include pending cases reported by SSA, because SSA's
pending cases do not include simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff
(for which SSA does not track pending cases). As the figure shows,
these pending cases do not change the governmentwide picture
significantly.
Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
[End of Figure]
Trends for individual agencies show mixed progress in reducing the
number of pending requests reported from 2002 to 2005--some agencies
have decreased numbers of pending cases, while others' numbers have
increased. Figure 6 shows processing rates at the 24 agencies (that is,
the number of requests that an agency processes relative to the number
it receives). Eight of the 24 agencies (AID, DHS, the Interior,
Education, HHS, HUD, NSF, and OPM) reported processing fewer requests
than they received each year for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005; 8
additional agencies processed less than they received in two of these
three years (Defense, Justice, Transportation, GSA, NASA, NRC, SSA, and
VA).
In contrast, two agencies (CIA and Energy) had processing rates above
100 percent in all 3 years, meaning that each made continued progress
in reducing their numbers of pending cases. Fourteen additional
agencies were able to make at least a small reduction in their numbers
of pending requests in 1 or more years between fiscal years 2003 and
2005.
Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005
(self-reported data).
Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2.
The agency processing rate is defined as the number of requests
processed in a given year compared with the requests received,
expressed as a percentage.
In 2002, FEMA data were used, and for 2003, 2004, and 2005, DHS data
were used.
[End of figure]
No Regular Mechanism Is in Place for Aggregating Annual Report Data:
Legislators noted in 1996 that the FOIA reporting requirements were
rewritten "to make them more useful to the public and to Congress, and
to make the information in them more accessible." The Congress also
gave the Department of Justice the responsibility to provide policy
guidance and oversee agencies' compliance with FOIA.
In its oversight and guidance role, Justice's Office of Information and
Privacy (OIP) created summaries of the annual FOIA reports and made
these available through its FOIA Post Web page
(http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/mainpage.htm). In 2003, Justice
described its summary as "a major guidance tool."[Footnote 31] It
pointed out that although it was not required to do so under the law,
the office had initiated the practice of compiling aggregate summaries
of all agencies' annual FOIA report data as soon as these were filed by
all agencies. These summaries did not contain aggregated statistical
tables, but they did provide prose descriptions that included
statistics on major governmentwide results. However, the most recent of
these summaries is for fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 32] According to the
Acting Director of OIP, she was not certain why such summaries had not
been made available since then. According to this official, internally
the agency found the summaries useful and was considering making them
available again. She also stated that these summaries gave a good
overall picture of governmentwide processing.
Aggregating and summarizing the information in the annual reports
serves to maximize their usefulness and accessibility, in accordance
with congressional intent, as well as potentially providing Justice
with insight into FOIA implementation governmentwide and valuable
benchmarks for use in overseeing the FOIA program. Such information
would also be valuable for others interested in gauging governmentwide
performance. The absence of such summaries reduces the ability of the
public and the Congress to consistently obtain a governmentwide picture
of FOIA processing.
In providing agency views for this testimony, the Acting Director of
OIP told us that the department would resume providing summaries, and
that these would generally be available by the summer following the
issuance of the annual reports.
Agency Improvement Plans Generally Included Areas of Improvement
Emphasized by the Executive Order:
As required by the Executive Order, all the 25 agencies submitted
improvement plans based on the results of reviews of their respective
FOIA operations, as well as on the areas emphasized by the order. The
plans generally addressed these four areas, with 20 of 25 plans
addressing all four. In particular, for all but 2 agencies with
reported backlog, plans included both measurable goals and timetables
for backlog reduction. Further, to increase reliance on dissemination,
improve communications on the status of requests, and increase public
awareness of FOIA processing, agencies generally set milestones to
accomplish activities promoting these aims. In some cases, agencies did
not set goals for a given area because they determined that they were
already strong in that area.
All Agencies Addressed Reducing Backlog, and Most Set Measurable Goals
and Milestones:
The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include
"specific activities that the agency will implement to eliminate or
reduce the agency's FOIA backlog, including (as applicable) changes
that will make the processing of FOIA requests more streamlined and
effective." It further states that plans were to include "concrete
milestones, with specific timetables and outcomes to be achieved," to
allow the plan's success to be measured and evaluated. In addition, the
Justice guidance suggested a number of process improvement areas for
agencies to consider, such as receiving or responding to requests
electronically, automated FOIA processing, automated tracking
capabilities, and multitrack processing. It also gave agencies
considerable leeway in choosing "means of measurement of success" for
improving timeliness and thus reducing backlog.[Footnote 33]
All agency plans discussed avoiding or reducing backlog, and most (22
out of 25) established measurable goals and timetables for this area of
focus. One agency, SBA, reported that it had no backlog, so it set no
goals. A second agency, NSF, set no specific numerical goals for
backlog reduction, but in fiscal year 2005 its backlog was
minimal,[Footnote 34] and its median processing time was 14.26
days.[Footnote 35] In addition, its plan includes activities to
increase efficiency and to monitor and analyze backlogged requests to
determine whether systemic changes are warranted in its processes. A
third agency, HUD, set a measurable goal for reducing backlog, but did
not include a date by which it planned to achieve this goal. However,
it achieved this goal, according to agency officials, by November
2006.[Footnote 36]
The goals chosen by the 22 remaining agencies varied considerably
(which is consistent with the flexibility in choosing measures that
Justice provided in its implementation guidance). Some agencies linked
backlog reduction to various different measures. For example, EPA's
goal was to reduce its response backlog to less than 10 percent of the
number of new FOIA requests received each year. Energy set a goal of
achieving a 50 percent reduction by June 2007 in the number of pending
FOIA cases that were over 1 year old. NRC chose to focus on improving
processing times, setting percentage goals for completion of different
types of requests (for example, completing 75 percent of simple
requests within 20 days). Labor's plan sets goals that aim for larger
percentages of reduction for the oldest categories of pending requests
(75 percent reduction for the oldest, 50 percent reduction for the next
oldest, and so on). A number of agencies included goals to close their
oldest 5 to 10 requests (Justice, the Treasury, Education, Commerce,
Defense, GSA, NASA, SSA, and VA).
Other agencies planned to eliminate their backlogs (for example, OPM
and DHS) or to eliminate fiscal year 2005 backlog (Transportation), and
several agencies chose goals based on a percentage of reduction of
existing backlog (for example, CIA, Commerce, Education, Defense, the
Interior, Justice, SSA, the Treasury, and USDA). Some agencies also
described plans to perform analyses that would measure their backlogs
so that they could then establish the necessary baselines against which
to measure progress.
In addition to setting backlog targets, agencies also describe
activities that contribute to reducing backlog. For example, the
Treasury plan, which states that backlog reduction is the main
challenge facing the department and the focus of its plan, includes
such activities (with associated milestones) as reengineering its
multitrack FOIA process, monitoring monthly reports, and establishing a
FOIA council.
The agency plans thus provide a variety of activities and measures of
improvement that should permit agency heads, the Congress, and the
public to assess the agencies' success in implementing their plans to
reduce backlog.
Most Agencies Plan to Increase Public Dissemination of Records through
Web Sites:
The Executive Order calls for "increased reliance on the dissemination
of records that can be made available to the public" without the
necessity of a FOIA request, such as through posting on Web sites. In
its guidance, Justice notes that agencies are required by FOIA to post
frequently requested records, policy statements, staff manuals and
instructions to staff, and final agency opinions. It encourages
agencies not only to review their activities to meet this requirement,
but also to make other public information available that might reduce
the need to make FOIA requests. It also suggests that agencies consider
improving FOIA Web sites to ensure that they are user friendly and up
to date.
Agency plans generally established goals and timetables for increasing
reliance on public dissemination of records, including through Web
sites. Of 25 agencies, 24 included plans to revise agency Web sites and
add information to them, and 12 of these are making additional efforts
to ensure that frequently requested documents are posted on their Web
sites. For example, Defense is planning to increase the number of its
components that have Web sites as well as posting frequently requested
documents. Interior is planning to facilitate the posting of frequently
requested documents by using scanning and redaction equipment to make
electronic versions readily available.
Agencies planned other related activities, such as making posted
documents easier to find, improving navigation, and adding other
helpful information. For example, AID plans to establish an
"information/searching decision tree" to assist Web site visitors by
directing them to agency public affairs staff who may be able to locate
information and avoid the need for visitors to file FOIA requests. HUD
plans activities to anticipate topics that may produce numerous FOIA
requests ("hot button" issues) and post relevant documents. Education
is planning to use its automated tracking technology to determine when
it is receiving multiple requests for similar information and then post
such information on its Web site.[Footnote 37]
The Treasury plan does not address increasing public dissemination of
records. The Treasury's plan, as mentioned earlier, is focused on
backlog reduction. It does not mention the other areas emphasized in
the Executive Order, list them among the areas it selected for review,
or explain the decision to omit them from the review and plan. Treasury
officials told us that they concentrated in their plan on areas where
they determined the department had a deficiency: namely, a backlog
consisting of numerous requests, some of which were very old (dating as
far back as 1991). By comparison, they did not consider they had
deficiencies in the other areas. They also stated that neither Justice
nor OMB had suggested that they revise the plan to include these areas.
With regard to dissemination, they told us that they did not consider
increasing dissemination to be mandatory, and they noted that their Web
sites currently provide frequently requested records and other public
documents, as required by the act. However, without a careful review of
the department's current dissemination practices or a plan to take
actions to increase dissemination, the Treasury does not have assurance
that it has identified and exploited available opportunities to
increase dissemination of records in such a way as to reduce the need
for the public to make FOIA requests, as stressed by the Executive
Order.
Most Agency Plans Included Improving Status Communications with FOIA
Requesters:
The Executive Order sets as policy that agencies shall provide FOIA
requesters ways to learn about the status of their FOIA requests and
states that agency improvement plans shall ensure that FOIA
administration is in accordance with this policy. In its implementation
guidance, Justice reiterated the order's emphasis on providing status
information to requesters and discussed the need for agencies to
examine, among other things, their capabilities for tracking status and
the forms of communication used with requesters.
Most agencies (22 of 25) established goals and timetables for improving
communications with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests.
Goals set by these agencies included planned changes to communications,
including sending acknowledgement letters, standardizing letters to
requesters, including information on elements of a proper FOIA request
in response letters, and posting contact information on Web pages.
Other activities included establishing toll free numbers for requesters
to obtain status information, acquiring software to allow requesters to
track the status of their requests, and holding public forums.
Three agencies did not include improvement goals because they
considered them unnecessary. In two cases (Defense and EPA), agencies
considered that status communications were already an area of strength.
* Defense considered that it was strong in both customer responsiveness
and communications.[Footnote 38] Defense's Web site provides
instructions for requesters on how to get information about the status
of requests, as well as information on Requester Service Centers and
Public Liaisons. Officials also told us that this information is
included in acknowledgement letters to requesters, and that the
department is working to implement an Interactive Customer Collection
tool that would enable requesters to provide feedback.
* Similarly, EPA officials told us that they considered the agency's
activities to communicate with requesters on the status of their
requests to be already effective, noting that many of the improvements
planned by other agencies were already in effect at EPA.[Footnote 39]
Officials also stated that EPA holds regular FOIA requester forums (the
last in November 2006), and that EPA's requester community had
expressed satisfaction with EPA's responsiveness. EPA's response to the
Executive Order describes its FOIA hotline for requesters and its
enterprise FOIA management system, deployed in 2005, that provides
"cradle to grave" tracking of incoming requests and responses.
The third agency, the Treasury, did not address improving status
communications, as its plan is focused on backlog reduction. As
required by the Executive Order, the Treasury did set up Requester
Service Centers and Public Liaisons, which are among the mechanisms
envisioned to improve status communications. However, because the
Treasury omitted status communications from the areas of improvement
that it selected for review, it is not clear that this area received
attention commensurate with the emphasis it was given in the Executive
Order. Without attention to communication with requesters, the Treasury
increases the risk that its FOIA operations will not be responsive and
citizen centered, as envisioned by the Executive Order.
Agencies Generally Plan to Rely on FOIA Reference Guides to Increase
Public Awareness of FOIA Processing:
The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include
activities to increase public awareness of FOIA processing, including
(as appropriate) expanded use of Requester Service Centers and FOIA
Public Liaisons, which agencies were required to establish by the
order. In Justice's guidance, it linked this requirement to the FOIA
Reference Guide that agencies are required to maintain as an aid to
potential FOIA requesters, because such guides can be an effective
means for increasing public awareness. Accordingly, the Justice
guidance advised agencies to double-check these guides to ensure that
they remain comprehensive and up to date.
Most agencies (23 of 25) defined goals and timetables for increasing
public awareness of FOIA processing, generally including ensuring that
FOIA reference guides were up to date. In addition, all 25 agencies
established requester service centers and public liaisons as required
by the Executive Order. Besides these activities, certain agencies
planned other types of outreach: for example, the Department of State
reported taking steps to obtain feedback from the public on how to
improve FOIA processes; the Department of the Interior plans to
initiate feedback surveys on requesters' FOIA experience; and the
Department of Labor is planning to hold public forums and solicit
suggestions from the requester community. Defense did not set specific
goals and milestones in this area; according to Defense, it did not do
so because its FOIA handbook had already been updated in the fall of
2005. Department officials told us that in meeting their goals and
milestones for revising FOIA Web sites, they expect to improve
awareness of Defense's FOIA process, as well as improving public access
and other objectives.
As mentioned earlier, the Treasury did not address this area in its
review or plan. However, Treasury has established Requester Service
Centers and FOIA Public Liaisons, as required. The Treasury's Director
of Disclosure Services[Footnote 40] also told us that the Treasury
provides on its Web site a FOIA handbook, a Privacy Act handbook, and a
citizen's guide for requesters. In addition, this official told us that
the Treasury had updated its FOIA handbook in 2005 and conducted staff
training based on the update. However, at the time of our review, the
FOIA handbook on the Web site was a version dated January 2000. When we
pointed out that this earlier version was posted, the official
indicated that he would arrange for the most recent version to be
posted.
Because the Treasury did not review its efforts to increase public
awareness, it missed an opportunity to discover that the handbook on
the Web site was outdated and thus had reduced effectiveness as a tool
to explain the agency's FOIA processing to the public. Without further
attention to increasing public awareness, the Treasury lacks assurance
that it has taken all appropriate steps to ensure that the public has
the means of understanding the agency's FOIA processing.
Annual Reporting and Selected Improvement Plans Could Be Further
Enhanced:
The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information about
citizens' use of this important tool for obtaining information about
government operation and decisions. The value of this information is
enhanced when it can be used to reveal trends and support
generalizations, but our ability to generalize about processing times-
-whether from agency to agency or year to year--is limited because only
median times are reported. Given that processing times are an important
gauge of government responsiveness to citizen inquiries, this
limitation impedes the development of broader pictures of FOIA
operations, which could be useful in monitoring efforts to improve
processing and reduce the increasing backlog of requests, as intended
by the Executive Order. Finally, having aggregated statistics and
summaries could increase the value of the annual reporting process for
assessing the performance of the FOIA program as a whole.
In the draft report on which my statement today is based, we suggest
that the Congress consider amending the act to require agencies to
report additional statistics on processing time, which at a minimum
should include average times and ranges. We also recommend that Justice
provide aggregated statistics and summaries of the annual reports.
The Executive Order provided a useful impetus for agencies to review
their FOIA operations and ensure that they are appropriately responsive
to the public generally and requesters specifically. Our draft report
makes recommendations aimed at improving selected agency improvement
plans. Nonetheless, all the plans show a commendable focus on making
measurable improvements and form a reasonable basis for carrying out
the order's goals.
In summary, increasing the requirements for annual reporting would
further improve the public visibility of the government's
implementation of FOIA. In addition, implementing the improvement plans
and reporting on their progress should serve to keep management
attention on FOIA and its role in keeping citizens well informed about
the operations of their government. However, to realize the goals of
the Executive Order, it will be important for Justice and the agencies
to continue to refine the improvement plans and monitor progress in
their implementation.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy to respond
to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at
this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
If you should have questions about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. Other major contributors included
Barbara Collier, Kelly Shaw, and Elizabeth Zhao.
Attachment I: Scope and Methodology:
For the draft report on which this testimony is based, we gauged
agencies' progress in processing requests by analyzing the workload
data (from fiscal year 2002 through 2005) included in the 25 agencies'
annual FOIA reports to assess trends in volume of requests received and
processed, median processing times, and the number of pending cases.
All agency workload data were self-reported in annual reports submitted
to the Attorney General.
To assess the reliability of the information contained in agency annual
reports, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and assessed
quality control processes agencies had in place. We selected 10
agencies to assess data reliability: the Departments of Agriculture
(USDA), Defense, Education, the Interior, Labor, and Veterans Affairs,
as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, and Social Security
Administration. We chose the Social Security Administration and
Veterans Affairs because they processed a majority of the requests. To
ensure that we selected agencies of varying size, we chose the
remaining 8 agencies by ordering them according to the number of
requests they received, from smallest to largest, and choosing every
third agency. These 10 agencies account for 97 percent of the received
requests that were reported in the 25 agencies' annual reports.
Of the 10 agencies that were assessed for data reliability, we
determined that the data for USDA's Farm Service Agency were not
reliable; these data account for over 80 percent of the reported USDA
data. We therefore eliminated USDA's data from our analysis. Because of
this elimination, our analysis was of 24 major agencies[Footnote 41]
(herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide). Table 7 shows the 25
agencies and their reliability assessment status.
Table 7: Agencies Reviewed:
[See PDF for Image - table did not computer]
Source: GAO.
[A] FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, FEMA was part of DHS.
[End of table]
To determine to what extent the agency improvement plans contain the
elements emphasized by the order, we first analyzed the Executive Order
to determine how it described the contents of the improvement plans. We
determined that the order emphasized the following areas to be
addressed by the plans: (1) reducing the backlog of FOIA requests, (2)
increasing reliance on public dissemination of records (affirmative and
proactive) including through Web sites, (3) improving communications
with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests, and (4)
increasing public awareness of FOIA processing including updating an
agency's FOIA Reference Guide. We also analyzed the improvement plans
to determine if they contained specific outcome- oriented goals and
timetables for each of the criteria. We then analyzed the 25 agencies'
(including USDA) plans to determine whether they contained goals and
timetables for each of these four elements.[Footnote 42] We evaluated
the versions of agency plans available as of December 15, 2006.
We also reviewed the Executive Order itself, implementing guidance
issued by OMB and the Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued
by Justice, and our past work in this area.
We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We performed our work from May 2006 to
February 2007 in Washington, D.C.
Attachment II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions:
The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that is
exempt from disclosure:
Exemption number: (1);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: (A) Specifically authorized under
criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact
properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
Exemption number: (2);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Related solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption number: (3);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Specifically exempted from
disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided
that such statute (A) requires that matters be withheld from the public
in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B)
establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular
types of matters to be withheld.
Exemption number: (4);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Trade secrets and commercial or
financial information obtained from a person and privileged or
confidential.
Exemption number: (5);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Inter-agency or intra-agency
memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party
other than an agency in litigation with the agency.
Exemption number: (6);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Personnel and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemption number: (7);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of
such law enforcement records or information.
Exemption number: (7)(A);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: could reasonably be expected to
interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Exemption number: (7)(B);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: would deprive a person of a right to
a fair trial or impartial adjudication.
Exemption number: (7)(C);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Exemption number: (7)(D);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: could reasonably be expected to
disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State,
local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which
furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a
record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority
in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a
lawful national security intelligence investigation, information
furnished by confidential source.
Exemption number: (7)(E);
Matters that exempt from FOIA: would disclose techniques and procedures
for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose
guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such
disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the
law; or.
Exemption number: (7)(F);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: could reasonably be expected to
endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
Exemption number: (8);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Contained in or related to
examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of,
or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation of
supervision of financial institutions.
Exemption number: (9);
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Geological and geophysical
information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
Source: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) through (b)(9).
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] 5 U.S.C. § 552.
[2] In an ordered set of values, the median is a value below and above
which there is an equal number of values; if there is no one middle
number, it is the arithmetic mean (average) of the two middle values.
[3] Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2005).
[4] More information on the Executive Order's requirements is provided
in the section on Background.
[5] We assessed the reliability of the information contained in the
annual reports of selected agencies. See attachment I for more
discussion of data reliability.
[6] Two GAO analysts independently analyzed each agency's plan to
determine if it contained objective goals and timetables for each of
the four elements. When the analysts disagreed, they discussed the
reasons for their differences and arrived at a consensus.
[7] Data from the Department of Agriculture were omitted because data
from a major component were not reliable.
[8] The arithmetic mean is the sum of all the members of a list of
numbers divided by the number of items in the list. In contrast, a
median is a number dividing the higher half of a population from the
lower half. (The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by
arranging all the values from lowest to highest and finding the middle
one.)
[9] Unlike means, medians cannot be added and averaged. Deriving a
median for two sets of numbers, for example, requires knowing each
number in both sets. The medians of the original sets are not relevant,
as only the source data can be used to derive a new median.
[10] One agency had minimal backlog; another set no target date for its
goal, but it met the goal the end of 2006.
[11] Fees may be waived when disclosure of the information requested is
determined to be 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.
[12] 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
[13] 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521.
[14] This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act
of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570).
[15] See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and
Guidelines, 52 FR 10011 (Mar. 27, 1987), effective April 27, 1987. Also
in 1987, the Department of Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees
when requests are determined to be in the public interest. Under the
guidelines, requests for waivers or reduction of fees are to be
considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the public
interest and the requester's commercial interests.
[16] 5 U.S.C.§ 552(e).
[17] GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).
[18] GAO, Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-02-493
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); Information Management: Update on
Freedom of Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004); and Information Management:
Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, GAO-05-648T
(Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2005).
[19] Executive Order 13392.
[20] Department of Justice, Executive Order 13,392 Implementation
Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 2006).
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm
[21] Also included in this guidance was a set of questions and answers
on implementing the order, as well as supplemental guidance on
preparing the annual FOIA reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. These
are to include reports on agencies' progress in implementing their
plans and improving their FOIA activities.
[22] GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of
Processing Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans, GAO-06-1022T
(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).
[23] These data were presented in our testimony on our preliminary
analysis, GAO-06-1022T.
[24] Because of the undercount in previous years, including SSA's
statistics in governmentwide data obscures year-to-year comparisons.
[25] According to SSA officials, most of these simple requests are for
essentially the same types of information, such as copies of earnings
records and verifications of monthly benefit amounts or Social Security
numbers.
[26] According to SSA, its field organization is decentralized to
provide services at the local level, and includes 10 regional offices,
6 processing centers, and approximately 1500 field offices.
[27] Denials can occur in the case of discrepancies in the requests,
such as incorrect Social Security numbers, for example.
[28] Justice's guidance defines the requests covered by the annual FOIA
reports as follows: "FOIA/PA request--Freedom of Information Act/
Privacy Act request. A FOIA request is generally a request for access
to records concerning a third party, an organization, or a particular
topic of interest. A Privacy Act request is a request for records
concerning oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA requests.
(All requests for access to records, regardless of which law is cited
by the requester, are included in this report.)"
[29] See GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001), and Information Management: Update
on Freedom of Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004).
[30] Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives, Report to accompany H.R. 3802, Electronic Freedom of
Information Amendments of 1996, H.R. 104-795 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
17, 1996).
[31] Department of Justice, 2003 Litigation and Compliance Report,
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/03introduction.htm.
[32] Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2003,
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost22.htm.
[33] For example, Justice's guidance states that "Agencies should
consider a number of measures of timeliness, including number of
pending requests, median processing times, average processing times (in
addition, if that is feasible), number of requests processed in a year,
duration of oldest pending requests, etc." "In determining such
appropriate measurements, agencies should be able to carefully
determine which ones best fit their individual circumstances, which can
vary greatly from one agency to another."
[34] In fiscal year 2005, NSF reported 273 requests received and 17
pending at the end of the reporting period. Note that pending cases are
not technically the same as the "backlog" referred to in the Executive
Order, which refers to "requests … that have not been responded to
within the statutory time limit." Pending cases reported in the annual
reports are those FOIA cases open at the end of the reporting period.
Although in previous reports, we have used the term "backlog" to refer
to these pending cases, they may or may not constitute backlog in the
sense of the Executive Order, primarily because some requests may have
arrived in the last 20 days of the reporting period. If so, they would
not exceed the statutory limit. Thus, backlogged cases in the sense of
the Executive Order are a subset of pending cases.
[35] NSF's plan stated that the vast majority of its FOIA requests are
answered within 20 working days, which is consistent with the median
processing time it reported.
[36] HUD set a goal of fewer than 400 pending requests at its
Headquarters FOIA Division, at which HUD states it typically has a
backlog of between 400 and 500. The HUD plan did not set backlog
reduction goals for its field operations, stating that "the field
offices appear to process FOIA requests more efficiently" than the
headquarters, based on median processing times. HUD officials also told
us that HUD field offices (which number about 80) typically receive
routine requests that can be processed quickly, such as requests for
information on grants and mortgages.
[37] This is distinct from multiple requests for the same document,
which is already covered by the FOIA provision that directs agencies to
post frequently requested documents.
[38] Defense performed extensive surveys of the opinions and practices
of its FOIA staff and Public Liaisons and concluded that "FOIA
personnel routinely contact requesters to try to resolve problems and
to better define requests." Department officials also told us that
Defense is in the process of collecting feedback from the requester
community.
[39] For example, EPA sends out an acknowledgment letter within a day
of the request that includes a tracking number, the department that
will be involved, and a contact name and telephone number.
[40] This official is also the FOIA public liaison for all Treasury
components except the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Inspector
General for Tax Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.
[41] The agencies included are listed in table 2; these agencies are
the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the
Central Intelligence Agency.
[42] Two GAO analysts independently analyzed each agency's plan to
determine if it contained objective goals and timetables for each of
the four elements we identified. When the analysts disagreed, they
discussed the reasons for their differences and arrived at a consensus.
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: