United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Information Policy, Census, and National 

Archives, House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform

FREEDOM OF 

INFORMATION ACT 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00p.m. EST 

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 

Processing Trends Show 

Importance of 

Improvement Plans 

Statement of Linda Koontz 

Director, Information Management Issues 

GAO-07-491T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 14, 2007

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Processing Trends Show Importance of 

Highlights of GAO-07-491T, a testimony Improvement Plans 

before the Subcommittee on Information 

Policy, Census, and National Archives, 

House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

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 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. 

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. 

Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002–2005 

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. 
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, FOIA1

 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.2

 In addition, the President issued an 

Executive Order in December 2005 that is aimed at improving 

agencies’ disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.3

 Among 

other things, this order required each agency to review its FOIA 

operations and develop improvement plans;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 

 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. 

Page 1 GAO-07-491T
• 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.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 

 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. 

Page 2 GAO-07-491T
was emphasized and contained goals and timetables for each.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 2005,7 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)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 

 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.) 

Page 3 GAO-07-491T
with arithmetical means).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)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. 

 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. 

Page 4 GAO-07-491T
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 

Page 5 GAO-07-491T
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 

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 

Page 6 GAO-07-491T
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).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 

 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. 

Page 7 GAO-07-491T
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. 

Page 8 GAO-07-491T
Table 1: “Other” Reasons for Nondisclosure

Category Definition

No records The agency searched and found no record responsive to the request. 

Referrals The agency referred records responsive to the request to another agency. 

Request withdrawn The requester withdrew the request. 

Fee-related reasons The requester refused to commit to pay fees (or other reasons related to fees). 

Records not reasonably described The requester did not describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to allow them 

to be located with a reasonable amount of effort. 

Not a proper FOIA request The request was not a FOIA request for one of several procedural reasons. 

Not an agency record The requested record was not within the agency’s control. 

Duplicate request The request was submitted more than once by the same requester. 

Source: Department of Justice. 

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 197412 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 

 12 5 U.S.C. § 552a. 

Page 9 GAO-07-491T
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,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.”14 OMB issued this guidance in April 1987.15

 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. 

Page 10 GAO-07-491T
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 online bulletins (available at 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.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; 

 16 5 U.S.C.§ 552(e). 

Page 11 GAO-07-491T
• 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 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 1999.17 In these reviews, we 

examined the contents of the annual reports for 25 major agencies 

(shown in table 2).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.

 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). 

Page 12 GAO-07-491T
Table 2: Agencies Reviewed

Agency Abbreviation

Agency for International Development AID 

Central Intelligence Agency CIA 

Department of Agriculture a USDA 

Department of Commerce DOC 

Department of Defense DOD 

Department of Education ED 

Department of Energy DOE 

Department of Health and Human Services HHS 

Department of Homeland Security b DHS 

Federal Emergency Management Agency b FEMA 

Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD 

Department of Interior DOI 

Department of Justice DOJ 

Department of Labor DOL 

Department of State State 

Department of the Treasury Treas 

Department of Transportation DOT 

Department of Veterans Affairs VA 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA 

General Services Administration GSA 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA 

National Science Foundation NSF 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC 

Office of Personnel Management OPM 

Small Business Administration SBA 

Social Security Administration 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. 

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 

Page 13 GAO-07-491T
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.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 

 19 Executive Order 13392. 

Page 14 GAO-07-491T
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.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.21 The improvement plans are 

posted on the Justice Web site at 

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 

 20 Department of Justice, Executive Order 13,392 Implementation Guidance

(posted Apr. 27, 2006). 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. 

Page 15 GAO-07-491T
backlog.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.)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 

 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, GAO06-1022T. 

Page 16 GAO-07-491T
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. 

Page 17 GAO-07-491T
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.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. 

 24 Because of the undercount in previous years, including SSA’s statistics in

governmentwide data obscures year-to-year comparisons. 

Page 18 GAO-07-491T
Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years 2002–2005 

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, 

Page 19 GAO-07-491T
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 

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. 

Page 20 GAO-07-491T
Table 3: Comparison of SSA’s Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff to 

Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005 

Fiscal year 

Total requests 

received

Total requests 

processed

Simple requests 

handled by nonFOIA staff

Percentage

of total 

processed

2005 17,257,886 17,262,315 17,223,713 99.8

2004 1,453,619 1,450,493 1,270,512 87.6

2003 705,280 704,941 678,849 96.3

2002 268,488 292,884 245,877 84.0

Sources: SSA FOIA reports (self-reported data), GAO analysis. 

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.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.26

Such requests are almost always granted,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 

 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. 

Page 21 GAO-07-491T
annual reports.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). 

 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.)” 

Page 22 GAO-07-491T
Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005 

Agency Total 

Percentage of total 

including SSA line 1

Percentage of total 

including SSA line 2 

SSA (all) 17,257,886 87.00 — 

SSA (excluding simple 

requests handled by non-FOIA 

staff) 

38,602 —

1.48 

VA 1,914,395 9.65 73.17

HHS 222,372 1.12 8.50

DHS 163,016 0.82 6.23

DOD 81,304 0.41 3.11

Treas 53,330 0.27 2.04

DOJ 52,010 0.26 1.99

DOL 23,505 0.12 0.90

EPA 12,201 0.06 0.47

OPM 12,085 0.06 0.46

DOT 9,597 0.05 0.37

DOI 6,749 0.03 0.26

State 4,602 0.02 0.18

HUD 4,227 0.02 0.16

SBA 3,739 0.02 0.14

DOE 3,729 0.02 0.14

CIA 2,935 0.01 0.11

ED 2,416 0.01 0.09

DOC 1,804 0.01 0.07

GSA 1,416 0.01 0.05

NASA 1,229 0.01 0.05

NRC 371 0.00 0.01

AID 369 0.00 0.01

NSF 273 0.00 0.01

Total including SSA line 1 19,835,560 — —

Total including SSA line 2 2,616,276 — —

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. 

Page 23 GAO-07-491T
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 

Statistics excluding SSAaStatistics including SSA

Disposition Number Percentage Number Percentage

Full grants 2,206,515 87.1 19,466,907 98.3

Partial grants 102,079 4.0 102,354 0.5 

Denial 19,864 0.8 20,318 0.1

Not disclosed for other 

reasons 

204,491 8.1 205,685 1.0

Total 2,532,949 19,795,264

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. 

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). 

Page 24 GAO-07-491T
Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency (Fiscal Year 2005) 

Note: Abbreviations are shown in table 2. USDA data have been omitted, as data from a major USDA

component were determined to be unreliable. 

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. 

Page 25 GAO-07-491T
This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has 

been evident in prior years as well.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. 

 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). 

Page 26 GAO-07-491T
Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by Track 

Type of request processing track 

Agency Simple Complex Single Expedited

AID — — 55 34 

CIA 7 68 — — 

DHS 16–61 3–242 — 2–45 

DOC 12 40 — 8 

DOD 16 85 — — 

DOE 5–106 10–170 — 1–12 

DOI 2–43 28–89 — 1–15 

DOJ 0–139 12–863 — 2–185 

DOL 6–30 14–60 — 2–18

DOT 1–30 20–134 — 5–30 

ED 35 66 — 24 

EPA 13–32 4–166 — 8–109

GSA — 14 — — 

HHS 10–26 60–370 5–173 14–158 

HUD 21–65 35–160 — 9–70 

NASA 19 49 — 15 

NRC 12 75 — 20 

NSF — — 14 —

OPM — — 14 1 

SBA — — 7 — 

SSA 15 39 10 17 

State 14 142 — 136 

Treas 2–86 3–251 — 1

VA — 1–60 — 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. 

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 

Page 27 GAO-07-491T
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 singletrack 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 

Page 28 GAO-07-491T
accessible.”

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 nonFOIA staff (for which SSA does not track pending cases). As the 

figure shows, these pending cases do not change the 

governmentwide picture significantly. 

 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). 

Page 29 GAO-07-491T
Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002–2005 

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 

Page 30 GAO-07-491T
their numbers of pending requests in 1 or more years between fiscal 

years 2003 and 2005. 

Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies 

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. 

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 

Page 31 GAO-07-491T
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 

(www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/mainpage.htm). In 2003, Justice 

described its summary as “a major guidance tool.”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 2003.32 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. 

 31 Department of Justice, 2003 Litigation and Compliance Report, 

www.usdoj.gov/oip/03introduction.htm. 32 Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2003, 

www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost22.htm. 

Page 32 GAO-07-491T
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. 33

 

 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 

Page 33 GAO-07-491T
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,34 and its median processing time was 14.26 days.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 

2006.36

 

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 

 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. 

Page 34 GAO-07-491T
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 

Page 35 GAO-07-491T
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.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 

 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. 

Page 36 GAO-07-491T
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. 

Page 37 GAO-07-491T
• Defense considered that it was strong in both customer 

responsiveness and communications.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.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 

 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.

Page 38 GAO-07-491T
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 

Page 39 GAO-07-491T
Treasury’s Director of Disclosure Services40 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 

 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. 

Page 40 GAO-07-491T
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. 

Page 41 GAO-07-491T
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 selfreported 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 agencies41

(herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide). Table 7 shows 

the 25 agencies and their reliability assessment status. 

 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. 

Page 42 GAO-07-491T
Table 7: Agencies Reviewed

Agency Abbreviation

Data reliability 

assessment

Agency for International Development AID Not assessed

Central Intelligence Agency CIA Not assessed

Department of Agriculture USDA Not reliable 

Department of Commerce DOC Not assessed

Department of Defense DOD Reliable 

Department of Education ED Reliable 

Department of Energy DOE Not assessed

Department of Health and Human Services HHS Not assessed

Department of Homeland Security a DHS Not assessed

Federal Emergency Management Agency a FEMA Not applicable

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

HUD Not assessed

Department of the Interior DOI Reliable 

Department of Justice DOJ Not assessed

Department of Labor DOL Reliable 

Department of State State Not assessed

Department of the Treasury Treas Not assessed

Department of Transportation DOT Not assessed

Department of Veterans Affairs VA Reliable 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA Not assessed

General Services Administration GSA Not assessed

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NASA Reliable 

National Science Foundation NSF Reliable 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Not assessed

Office of Personnel Management OPM Not assessed

Small Business Administration SBA Reliable 

Social Security Administration SSA Reliable 

Source: GAO.

a FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, 

FEMA was part of DHS. 

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 

Page 43 GAO-07-491T
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.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. 

 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. 

Page 44 GAO-07-491T
Attachment II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 

The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that is 

exempt from disclosure:

Exemption number Matters that are exempt from FOIA 

(1) (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.

(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 

(3) 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. 

(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 

privileged or confidential. 

(5) 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. 

(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that 

the production of such law enforcement records or information 

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; 

(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(D) 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; 

(E) 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 

(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. 

(8) 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. 

(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. 

Source: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) through (b)(9). 

(310783) Page 45 GAO-07-491T
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. However, 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. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER