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: