a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2007 FREEDOM OF 

INFORMATION ACT

Processing Trends 

Show Importance of 

Improvement Plans

GAO-07-441
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2007

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Processing Trends Show Importance of 

Highlights of GAO-07-441, a report to Improvement Plans 

congressional requesters 

The Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) establishes that federal 

agencies must provide access to 

their information, enabling the 

public to learn about government 

operations and decisions. To help 

ensure proper implementation, the 

act requires that agencies report 

annually to the Attorney General, 

giving specific information about 

their FOIA operations, such as 

numbers of requests received and 

processed and median processing

times. Also, a recent Executive

Order directs agencies to develop

plans to improve FOIA operations, 

including decreasing backlog. 

For this study, GAO was asked to

examine the 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

GAO suggests that the Congress 

consider requiring annual reports 

to provide additional statistics, 

including arithmetic means. GAO

also makes recommendations to 

strengthen selected improvement

plans, among other things. The 

agencies reviewed generally agreed

with the draft report, except that

the Treasury partially disagreed 

with GAO’s assessment and 

associated recommendation. GAO

continues to support its assessment 

and recommendation. 

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 fig.). 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, 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 

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005

Requests pending in thousands

Year

Sources: GAO analysis; FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005 (self-reported data).

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-441.

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. 
Page i GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 8

Status of FOIA Processing Appears Similar to Previous Years, but 

Limitations in Annual Report Data Present Challenges 19

Agency Improvement Plans Generally Included Areas of 

Improvement Emphasized by the Executive Order 36

Conclusions 44

Matters for Congressional Consideration 45

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 45

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 49

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 52

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice 54

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury 55

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 57

Appendix VI: Comments from the Agency for International 

Development 58

Appendix VII: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 59

Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Science Foundation 60

Appendix IX: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 62

Appendix X: Median Processing Times Reported 63

Agency for International Development 64

Central Intelligence Agency 64

Department of Homeland Security 65

Department of Commerce 66

Department of Defense 66

Department of Energy 67

Department of the Interior 69

Department of Justice 70

Department of Labor 73

Department of Transportation 75

Department of Education 76

Environmental Protection Agency 76
Contents

Page ii GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

General Services Administration 77

Department of Health and Human Services 78

Department of Housing and Urban Development 80

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 80

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 81

National Science Foundation 81

Office of Personnel Management 82

Small Business Administration 82

Social Security Administration 83

Department of State 83

Department of the Treasury 84

Department of Veterans Affairs 85

Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 87

Tables Table 1: “Other” Reasons for Nondisclosure 11

Table 2: Agencies Reviewed 15

Table 3: Comparison of SSA’s Simple Requests Handled by 

Non-FOIA Staff to Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005 23

Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005 25

Table 5: Disposition of Processed Requests for Fiscal Year 2005 26

Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by 

Track 28

Table 7: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by 

Agencies for Different Processing Tracks 30

Table 8: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by 

Components for Different Processing Tracks 30

Table 9: Agencies Reviewed 50

Figures Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process 9

Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal 

Years 2002–2005 21

Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, 

Omitting SSA, Fiscal Years 2002–2005 22

Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 2005) 27

Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002–2005 33

Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies 34
Contents

Page iii GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Abbreviations

AID Agency for International Development

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

e-FOIA Electronic Freedom of Information Act

ED Department of Education

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Science Foundation 

OIP Office of Information and Privacy

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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.
Page 1 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

March 30, 2007 Letr

The Honorable William Lacy Clay

Chairman

Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Todd Platts

House of Representatives

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)1 establishes that federal agencies 

must provide the public with access to government information, thus 

enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions. 

Specific requests by the public for information through the act have led to 

disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the government, as 

well as the identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs, and 

serious health hazards.

To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that agencies 

provide annual reports on their FOIA operations to the Attorney General; 

these reports include information as specified in the act, such as how many 

requests were received and processed in the previous fiscal year, how 

many requests were pending at the end of the year, and the median times 

that agencies or their components took to process requests.2

 Since 2001, 

we have provided the Congress with periodic analyses of the contents of 

these annual reports.3

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

For example, see GAO, Information Management: Implementation of the Freedom of 

Information Act, GAO-05-648T (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2005); Information 

Management: Update on Freedom of Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004); Information Management: Progress in Implementing 

the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).
Page 2 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

In December 2005, the President issued an Executive Order aimed at 

improving agencies’ disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.4

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

operations and develop improvement plans;5

 by June 14, 2006, each agency 

was to submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) summarizing the results of the 

agency’s review and including a copy of its improvement plan. These plans 

were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables, by which 

the agency head is to evaluate the agency’s success in implementing the 

plan. 

The Executive Order directs agencies in their FOIA improvement plans to 

focus on ways to

• eliminate or reduce any backlog of requests; 

• increase reliance on public dissemination of records including through 

Web sites; 

• improve communications with requesters about the status of their 

requests; and 

• increase public awareness of FOIA processing. 

In July 2006, we testified before the Subcommittee on Government 

Management, Finance, and Accountability, House Committee on 

Government Reform, providing preliminary results of our ongoing analyses 

of the 2005 annual reports as well as of the improvement plans required by 

the Executive Order.6

 This report provides the final results of our analyses.7

4

Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 14, 2005). 

5

More information on the Executive Order’s requirements is provided in the section on 

Background.

6

GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows 

Importance of Improvement Plans, GAO-06-1022T (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).

7

More recently, we provided testimony to the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, 

and National Archives (House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform): GAO, 

Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans, 

GAO-07-491T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2007).
Page 3 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

As agreed, our objectives were to determine (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.

To describe statistics on the processing of FOIA requests, we analyzed 

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.8

To determine to what extent the agency plans contained the elements 

emphasized by the order, we analyzed the plans for all 25 agencies to 

determine whether they addressed each area of improvement that was 

emphasized and contained goals and timetables for each.9

 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 appendix I. 

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. We performed our work from May 2006 to 

January 2007 in Washington, D.C. 

8

We assessed the reliability of the information contained in the annual reports of selected 

agencies. See appendix I for more discussion of data reliability.

9

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. 
Page 4 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Results in Brief Based on data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 

2002 to 2005,10 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. According to agency reports:

• Recently the rate of increase in requests received and processed has 

flattened. Except for one agency—the Social Security Administration 

(SSA)11—these increases were only about 3 and 2 percent from 2004 to 

2005 (compared to 29 and 27 percent from 2002 to 2005). 

• For most requests processed in fiscal year 2005, responsive records 

were provided in full. The percentage (87 percent) is about the same as 

in previous years.

• Median times to process requests varied greatly. These ranged from 

less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at 

others (sometimes much more than 100). 

• Numbers of pending requests carried over from year to year continue 

to increase. Also, the rate of increase is growing.12

10Data from the Department of Agriculture were omitted because data from a major 

component were not reliable. 

11We exclude SSA’s statistics from our discussion of requests received, requests processed, 

and their disposition because a change in the agency’s counting methodology resulted in a 

report of over 17 million requests for fiscal year 2005, for a jump of about 16 million from the 

year before. According to SSA, these numbers were previously underreported. Thus, 

including these statistics in the governmentwide data would obscure year-to-year 

comparisons. 

12Statements on pending requests are based on statistics that include the numbers reported 

by SSA, because they are not affected by the approximately 17 million requests mentioned 

in footnote 10, for which SSA does not keep statistics on pending requests or processing 

times.
Page 5 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Our ability to generalize in one of these areas—FOIA processing times—is 

limited by the form in which the statistics are reported: that is, as required 

by the act, agencies report median processing times, not averages.13

Working with median data only, 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, or an agencywide 

statistic based on separate reports from all components of the agency).14

This limitation on aggregating data impedes the development of broader 

pictures of FOIA operations, which would be helpful both for public 

accountability and for effectively managing agency FOIA programs. 

Further, we omitted from our statistical analysis data from the Department 

of Agriculture because of the unreliability of data reported by a major 

component (the Farm Service Agency, which appeared to account for 

about 80 percent of the department’s data). Providing annual report data 

that are generalizable and accurate is important to meeting the act’s goal of 

providing visibility into government FOIA operations. 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. All agencies with reported 

backlog developed plans to reduce backlog, and (with minor exceptions) 

13The term “average” in everyday language generally indicates the arithmetic mean: that 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.) The advantage of finding a median is that it is not 

skewed by a small number of outliers. 

14Medians 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.
Page 6 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 was focused on backlog reduction and 

omitted the other three areas of improvement; if the department does not 

review these areas and, as appropriate, establish and report on goals and 

timetables for them, it will not have assurance that it has taken appropriate 

steps to address increasing public dissemination, improving status 

communications, and increasing public awareness of FOIA processing. 

We suggest that the Congress consider improving the usefulness of the 

agency annual FOIA reports by requiring agencies to report statistics in 

addition to processing times, including averages. In addition, we are 

recommending that Justice provide aggregated statistics and summaries of 

the annual reports. Finally, we are making recommendations to the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Treasury aimed at improving annual 

FOIA reports and agency improvement plans. 

We provided drafts of our report for comment to OMB and all 25 agencies 

reviewed. All the agencies generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations or had no comment, except for the Department of the 

Treasury; Treasury partially disagreed with our assessment and 

conclusions regarding its improvement plan and disagreed with our 

recommendation. Written comments from the Departments of Agriculture, 

Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, along with the Agency for 

International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

National Science Foundation, are provided in appendixes II through VIII; 

other comments were provided orally. In addition, six agencies (OMB, the 

Office of Personnel Management, and SSA, and the Departments of the 

Interior, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development) provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

More specifically:

• The Department of Justice concurred with our assessment and 

recommendation and described plans to implement the 

recommendation. 
Page 7 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

• The Department of Agriculture provided additional information on 

actions to improve FOIA processing and to ensure that data from the 

Farm Service Agency are reliable. 

• Except for Treasury, other agencies providing written comments 

generally provided additional information on their FOIA programs or 

provided suggestions on the draft.

• In written and e-mail comments, the Department of the Treasury stated 

that it will be evaluating its improvement plan and taking action to 

improve its FOIA administration. It indicated a general agreement with 

the conclusion that Treasury’s plan needs to more thoroughly integrate 

the Executive Order, and noted that the plan is a living, dynamic 

document that will accommodate changing circumstances. However, 

the department partially disagreed with our assessment of its 

improvement plan, indicating that we did not take into sufficient 

consideration activities that it had been carrying out before the issuance 

of the Executive Order (such as improvements to automation). Further, 

it disagreed with our recommendation that it review its FOIA operations 

in certain areas emphasized by the Executive Order and modify the plan 

as appropriate to address these areas. The department considered that 

its plan’s emphasis on backlog reduction was in accordance with the 

emphasis placed on it by the Executive Order and Justice guidance, that 

its plan went well beyond discussing backlog reduction, and that actions 

that were not included in the plan implemented other elements in the 

letter and spirit of the Executive Order. 

Although we agree that the Executive Order and Justice guidance 

placed great emphasis on backlog reduction, we do not agree that the 

plan and the other actions described fully address all the areas 

emphasized in the order. For example, although the improvements to 

automation described by the department may contribute to (for 

example) improved communication with requesters, without goals and 

milestones tying these automation improvements to that objective, 

neither Treasury management nor the public will be well placed to judge 

whether the department has succeeded in achieving the objective. We 

note, however, that Treasury in its comments indicates that it does plan 

to continue to reevaluate its improvement plan and modify it to 

accommodate changing circumstances. If future modifications 

specifically address external communications, particularly with 

requesters, the goal of our recommendation may be achieved.
Page 8 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and 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 on 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 (app. IX provides the complete list). In 

denying access to material, agencies may cite these exemptions. The act 

requires agencies to notify requesters of the reasons for any adverse 

determination (that is, a determination not to provide records) and grants 

requesters the right to appeal agency decisions to deny access.

In addition, agencies are required to meet certain time frames for making 

key determinations: whether to comply with requests (20 business days 

from receipt of the request), responses to appeals of adverse 

determinations (20 business days from filing of the appeal), and whether to 

provide expedited processing of requests (10 calendar days from receipt of 

the request). The 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 
Page 9 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 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 

Receive

request Create case files

Process request

• Log FOIA request

•

• Scope request

• Estimate fees

• Generate initial responses

Retrieve records

• Search for responsive records

• Request records

• Review responsive records

Process records

• Make redactions

• Apply exemption codes

• Calculate fees

Approve release of records

•

•

Review redacted records

•

Generate responses

Approve release

Release

records

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
Page 10 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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).15

Specific details of agency processes for handling requests vary, depending 

on the agency’s organizational structure and the complexity of the requests 

received. While some agencies centralize processing in one main office, 

other agencies have separate FOIA offices for each agency component and 

field office. Agencies also vary in how they allow requests to be made. 

Depending on the agency, requesters can submit requests by telephone, fax, 

letter, or e-mail or through the Web. In addition, agencies may process 

requests in two ways, known as “multitrack” and “single track.” Multitrack 

processing involves dividing requests into two groups: (1) simple requests 

requiring relatively minimal review, which are placed in one processing 

track, and (2) more voluminous and complex requests, which are placed in 

another track. In contrast, single-track processing does not distinguish 

between simple and complex requests. With single-track processing, 

agencies process all requests on a first-in/first-out basis. Agencies can also 

process FOIA requests on an expedited basis when a requester has shown a 

compelling need or urgency for the information.

As agencies process FOIA requests, they generally place them in one of 

four possible disposition categories: grants, partial grants, denials, and “not 

disclosed for other reasons.” These categories are defined as follows:

15Fees 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 11 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

• Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in full.

• Partial grants: Agency decisions to withhold some records in whole or 

in part, because such information was determined to fall within one or 

more exemptions.

• Denials: Agency decisions not to release any part of the requested 

records because all information in the records is determined to be 

exempt under one or more statutory exemptions.

• Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release 

requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than 

statutory exemptions from disclosing records. The categories and 

definitions of these “other” reasons for nondisclosure are shown in 

table 1.

Table 1: “Other” Reasons for Nondisclosure

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.

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.
Page 12 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

The Privacy Act Also 

Provides Individuals with 

Access Rights

In addition to FOIA, the Privacy Act of 197416 includes provisions granting 

individuals the right to gain access to and correct information about 

themselves held by federal agencies. Thus the Privacy Act serves as a 

second major legal basis, in addition to FOIA, for the public to use in 

obtaining government information. The Privacy Act also places limitations 

on agencies’ collection, disclosure, and use of personal information.

Although the two laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the 

Privacy Act permit individuals to seek access to records about 

themselves—known as “first-party” access. Depending on the individual 

circumstances, one law may allow broader access or more extensive 

procedural rights than the other, or access may be denied under one act 

and allowed under the other. Consequently, the Department of Justice’s 

Office of Information and Privacy issued guidance that it is “good policy for 

agencies to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA requests (as well as 

possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of whether the FOIA is cited in a 

requester’s letter.” This guidance was intended to help ensure that 

requesters receive the fullest possible response to their inquiries, 

regardless of which law they cite. 

In addition, Justice guidance for the annual FOIA report directs agencies to 

include Privacy Act requests (that is, first-party requests) in the statistics 

reported. According to the guidance, “A Privacy Act request is a request for 

records concerning oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA 

requests. (All requests for access to records, regardless of which law is 

cited by the requester, are included in this report.)”

Although FOIA and the Privacy Act can both apply to first-party requests, 

these may not always be processed in the same way as described earlier for 

FOIA requests. In some cases, little review and redaction (see fig. 1) is 

required, such as, for example, 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.

165 U.S.C. § 552a.
Page 13 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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,17

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.”18 OMB issued this guidance in April 1987.19

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 the 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 

1744 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521.

18This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-

570). 

19See 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-bycase basis, taking into account both the public interest and the requester’s commercial 

interests.
Page 14 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

resources available to agencies and the public via the Justice Web site and 

on-line 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.20 The following are examples of information that is to be 

included in these reports:

• number of requests received, processed, and pending;

• median number of days taken by the agency to process different types of 

requests;

• determinations made by the agency not to disclose information and the 

reasons for not disclosing the information;

• disposition of administrative appeals by requesters;

• information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA requests; and

• full-time-equivalent staffing information.

In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney General, 

agencies are to make them available to the public in electronic form. The 

Attorney General is required to make all agency reports available online at 

a single electronic access point and report to the 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.) 

205 U.S.C.§ 552(e).
Page 15 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 1999.21 In these reviews, we examined the contents 

of the annual reports for 25 major agencies (shown in table 2).22 They 

include the 24 major agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, 

as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and, until 2003, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 2003, the creation of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which incorporated FEMA, led 

to a shift in some FOIA requests from agencies affected by the creation of 

the new department, but the same major component entities are reflected 

in all the years reviewed.

Table 2: Agencies Reviewed

21GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom 

of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).

22GAO, 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).

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
Page 16 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 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. 

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency Abbreviation
Page 17 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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.23 Briefly, FOIA requesters are to receive courteous and 

appropriate services, including ways to learn about the status of their 

requests and the agency’s response, and agencies are to provide ways for 

requesters and the public to learn about the FOIA process and publicly 

available agency records (such as those on Web sites). In addition, agency 

FOIA operations are to be results oriented: agencies are to process 

requests efficiently, achieve measurable improvements in FOIA processing, 

and reform programs that do not produce appropriate results. 

To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that agency 

heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their FOIA programs, and 

that agencies establish Requester Service Centers and Public Liaisons to 

ensure appropriate communication with requesters. The Chief FOIA 

Officers were directed to conduct reviews of the agencies’ FOIA operations 

and develop improvement plans to ensure that FOIA administration was in 

accordance with applicable law as well as with the policy set forth in the 

order. By June 2006, agencies were to submit reports that included the 

results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans. The order 

also instructed the Attorney General to issue guidance on implementation 

of the order’s requirements for agencies to conduct reviews and develop 

plans. Finally, the order instructed agencies to report on their progress in 

implementing their plans and meeting milestones as part of their annual 

reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and required agencies to account for 

any milestones missed.

23Executive Order 13392.
Page 18 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

In April 2006, the Department of Justice posted guidance on 

implementation of the order’s requirements for FOIA reviews and 

improvement plans.24 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.25 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 backlog.26 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.

24Department of Justice, Executive Order 13,392 Implementation Guidance (posted Apr. 

27, 2006). www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm

25Also 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.

26GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of Processing Trends Shows 

Importance of Improvement Plans, GAO-06-1022T (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).
Page 19 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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, which were 

reported in our July 2006 testimony, are omitted in what follows, because 

we determined that data from a major USDA component were not reliable.) 

For example, the public continued to submit more requests for information 

from the federal government through FOIA, but many agencies, despite 

increasing the numbers of requests processed, did not keep pace with this 

increased volume. As a result, the number of pending requests carried over 

from year to year has been steadily increasing. However, our ability to 

make generalizations about processing time is limited by the type of 

statistic reported (that is, the median). Taking steps to improve the 

accuracy and form of annual report data could provide more insight into 

FOIA processing. 

Not All Data from USDA’s 

Farm Service Agency Are 

Reliable, but Its 

Improvement Plan Provides 

Opportunity to Address This 

Weakness

We omitted data from USDA’s annual FOIA report because we determined 

that not all these data were reliable. Although some USDA components 

expressed confidence in their data, one component, the Farm Service 

Agency, did not. According to this agency’s FOIA Officer, portions of the 

agency’s data in annual reports were not accurate or complete. This is a 

significant deficiency, because the Farm Service Agency reportedly 

processes over 80 percent of the department’s total FOIA requests. 

Currently, FOIA processing for the Farm Service Agency is highly 

decentralized, taking place in staff offices in Washington, D.C., and Kansas 

City, 50 state offices, and about 2,350 county offices. The agency FOIA 

officer told us that she questioned the completeness and accuracy of data 

supplied by the county offices. This official stated that some of the field 

office data supplied for the annual report were clearly wrong, leading her 

to question the systems used to record workload data at field offices and 

the field office staff’s understanding of FOIA requirements. She attributed 

this condition to the agency’s decentralized organization and to lack of 

management attention, resources, and training. Lacking accurate data 

hinders the Farm Service Agency from effectively monitoring and 

managing its FOIA program. 

The Executive Order’s requirement to develop an improvement plan 

provides an opportunity for the Farm Service Agency to address its data 

reliability problems. More specifically, Justice’s guidance on implementing 

the Executive Order refers to the need for agencies to explore 

improvements in their monitoring and tracking systems and staff training. 

USDA has developed an improvement plan that includes activities to 
Page 20 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

improve FOIA processing at the Farm Service Agency that are relevant to 

the issues raised by the Farm Service Agency’s FOIA Officer, including both 

automation and training. The plan sets goals for ensuring that all agency 

employees who process or retrieve responsive records are trained in the 

necessary FOIA duties, as well as for determining the type of automated 

tracking to be implemented. According to the plan, an electronic tracking 

system is needed to track requests, handle public inquiries regarding 

request status, and prepare a more accurate annual FOIA report. In 

addition, the Farm Service Agency plans to determine the benefit of 

increased centralization of FOIA request processing. 

However, the plan does not directly address improvements to data 

reliability. If USDA does not also plan for activities, measures, and 

milestones to improve data reliability, it increases the risk that the Farm 

Service Agency will not produce reliable FOIA statistics, which are 

important for program oversight and meeting the act’s goal of providing 

visibility into government FOIA operations.

Except for SSA, Increases in 

Requests Received and 

Processed Are Generally 

Slowing

The numbers of FOIA requests received and processed continue to rise, but 

except for one case—SSA—the rate of increase has flattened in recent 

years. For SSA, we present statistics separately because the agency 

reported an additional 16 million requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all 

other agencies combined, which together total about 2.6 million. SSA 

attributed this rise to an improvement in its method of counting requests 

and stated that in previous years, these requests were undercounted. 

Further, all but about 38,000 of SSA’s over 17 million requests are simple 

requests for personal information by or on behalf of individuals.

Figure 2 shows total requests reported governmentwide for fiscal years 

2002 through 2005, with SSA’s share shown separately.27 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.

27Because of the undercount in previous years, including SSA’s statistics in governmentwide 

data obscures year-to-year comparisons. 
Page 21 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

SSA

23 Agencies

2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

FOIA request in millions

Received Processed

Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005 (self-reported data).
Page 22 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

contrast, from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, the rise was much less: about 3 

percent for requests received, and about 2 percent for requests processed.

Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Omitting SSA, Fiscal 

Years 2002–2005

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. 

2002 2003 2004 2005

0

3

2

Received

Processed

Year

Requests (in millions)

Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005 (self-reported data).
Page 23 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Table 3: Comparison of SSA’s Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff to 

Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005

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.28

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.29 Such requests are almost always granted,30 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.

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

28According 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. 

29According to SSA, its field organization is decentralized to provide services at the local 

level, and includes 10 regional offices, 6 processing centers, and approximately 1,500 field 

offices. 

30Denials can occur in the case of discrepancies in the requests, such as incorrect Social 

Security numbers, for example.
Page 24 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

According to SSA officials, they included information on these requests in 

their annual reports because Justice guidance instructs agencies to treat 

Privacy Act requests (requests for records concerning oneself) as FOIA 

requests and report them in their annual reports.31 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 4.32

The rest of the 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).

31Justice’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.)”

32Several of these agencies, like SSA, process a large number of Privacy Act requests. For 

example, the Treasury has stated that the majority of requests received by the Internal 

Revenue Service are first party requests for tax records; these requests make up the bulk of 

Treasury FOIA statistics (about 80 percent).
Page 25 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005

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.

Agency 

Total 

requests 

received

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 nonFOIA 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 — —
Page 26 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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

Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).

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.

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.

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).

Statistics excluding SSAa Statistics 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
Page 27 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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. 

Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2005 (self-reported data). 

Not disclosed for other reasons

Denials

Partial grants

Full grants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Agency

Percentage

VA

Treas

S

SS

tate

A

SBA

N

OPM

SF

NRC

NASA

HH

HUD

S

GSA

EPA

ED

DH

DOC

DOD

DOE

DOI

DOJ

DOL

DOT

S

AID

CIA
Page 28 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been 

evident in prior years as well.33 In many cases, the variance can be 

accounted for by the types of requests that different agencies process. For 

example, as discussed earlier, SSA grants a very high proportion of requests 

because they are requests for personal information about individuals that 

are routinely made available to or for the individuals concerned. Similarly, 

VA routinely makes medical records available to individual veterans, and 

HHS also handles large numbers of Privacy Act requests. Such requests are 

generally granted in full. Other agencies, on the other hand, receive 

numerous requests whose responses must routinely be redacted. For 

example, NSF reported in its annual report that most of its requests (an 

estimated 90 percent) are for copies of funded grant proposals. The 

responsive documents are routinely redacted to remove personal 

information on individual principal investigators (such as salaries, home 

addresses, and so on), which results in high numbers of “partial grants” 

compared to “full grants.”

Processing Times Vary, but 

Broad Generalizations Are 

Limited

For 2005, the reported time required to process requests (by track) varied 

considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median processing 

times for fiscal year 2005. For agencies that reported processing times by 

component rather than for the agency as a whole, the table indicates the 

range of median times reported by the agency’s components. 

Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by Track

33See 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).

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
Page 29 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 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, 

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Type of request processing track

Agency Simple Complex Single Expedited
Page 30 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 singletrack processing. The median processing times for single-track processing 

varied from 5 days (at an HHS component) to 173 days (at another HHS 

component).

The changes from fiscal year 2004 to 2005 also vary. For agencies that 

reported agencywide figures, table 7 shows how many showed increased or 

decreased median processing times. Table 8 shows these numbers for the 

components that were reported separately. 

Table 7: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by Agencies for Different Processing Tracks

Sources: Annual FOIA reports, GAO analysis.

Table 8: Changes in Median Processing Times Reported by Components for Different Processing Tracks

Sources: Annual FOIA reports, GAO analysis.

Note: A total of 204 components are listed in the FOIA reports. Not all the components processed 

requests or used all the tracks.

Agencies with 

increased median 

times

Agencies with decreased 

median times

Agencies with 

unchanged 

median times

Processing track

Number of agencies

using this track Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Simple 7 3 42.9 3 42.9 1 14.3

Complex 8 5 62.5 2 25.0 1 12.5

Single 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 0 0.0

Expedited 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 0 0.0

Processing track

Number of components 

using this track

Components with 

increased median 

times

Components with 

decreased median 

times

Components with 

unchanged median 

times

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Simple 107 48 44.9 41 38.3 18 16.8

Complex 94 49 52.1 39 41.5 6 6.4

Single 9 3 33.3 2 22.2 4 44.4

Expedited 38 22 57.9 11 28.9 5 13.2
Page 31 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

In general, these tables show that no trend emerges across tracks and types 

of reporting, and the numbers of agencies and components involved vary 

from track to track. The picture that emerges is of great variation in 

processing times according to circumstances. 

To allow more insight into the variations in median processing times, we 

provide in appendix X tables of median processing times as reported by 

agencies and components in the annual FOIA reports in fiscal years 2004 

and 2005. This attachment also includes information on the number of 

requests reported by the agencies and components, which provides context 

for assessing the median times reported.

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 the Congress, 

and [making] the information in them more accessible.”34 However, the 

limitation on aggregating data imposed by the use of medians alone 

impedes the development of broader pictures of FOIA operations. A more 

34Committee 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 32 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 the governmentwide increase in number of requests 

processed, 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 2002.35 In 2002, pending requests governmentwide were 

reported to number about 138,000, whereas in 2005, about 200,000—45 

percent more—were reported. (In addition, the rate of increase grew in 

fiscal year 2005, rising 24 percent from fiscal year 2004, compared to 13 

percent from 2003 to 2004.) Figure 5 shows these results, illustrating the 

accelerating rate at which pending cases have been increasing. 

These statistics include pending cases reported by SSA, because SSA’s 

pending cases do not include simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff 

(for which SSA does not track pending cases). As the figure shows, these 

pending cases do not change the governmentwide picture significantly. 

35For most of these agencies, the numbers of requests received and processed also 

increased, as shown in figure 2.
Page 33 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 2 of these 3 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 

0

50

100

150

200

Agencies without SSA

All agencies

2002 2003 2004 2005

Requests pending in thousands

Year

Source: GAO analysis, FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005 (self-reported data).
Page 34 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

were able to make at least a small reduction in their numbers of pending 

requests in 1 or more years between fiscal years 2003 and 2005. 

Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies 

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.

Source: GAO analysis of FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2005 (self-reported data).

50

60

0

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

2005

2004

2003

2002

VA

Treas

S

SS

tate

A

SBA

N

OPM

SF

NRC

NASA

HH

HUD

S

GSA

FEMA

EPA

ED

DH

DOC

DOD

DOE

DOI

DOJ

DOL

DOT

S

AID

CIA

Percentage

Agency

Reducing 

the number

of pending

cases at

the end of

the year 

Adding to

the number

of pending

cases at

the end of

the year 

Processes

100% of

requests

received in

a year
Page 35 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 the Congress, and 

to make the information in them more accessible.” The Congress also gave 

the Department of Justice the responsibility to provide policy guidance and 

oversee agencies’ compliance with FOIA.

In its oversight and guidance role, Justice’s Office of Information and 

Privacy (OIP) created summaries of the annual FOIA reports and made 

these available through its FOIA Post Web page 

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

summary as “a major guidance tool.”36 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 2003.37 According to the Acting 

Director of OIP, she did not know 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.

36Department of Justice, 2003 Litigation and Compliance Report,

www.usdoj.gov/oip/03introduction.htm

37Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2003,

www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost22.htm
Page 36 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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.38

38For example, Justice’s guidance states that “Agencies should consider a number of 

measures of timeliness, including number of pending requests, median processing times, 

average processing times (in addition, if that is feasible), number of requests processed in a 

year, duration of oldest pending requests, etc.” “In determining such appropriate 

measurements, agencies should be able to carefully determine which ones best fit their 

individual circumstances, which can vary greatly from one agency to another.”
Page 37 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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 it had minimal backlog (in fiscal year 2005, NSF reported 273 requests 

received and 17 pending at the end of the reporting period),39 and its 

median processing time in fiscal year 2005 was 14.26 days.40 Its plan 

includes activities to increase efficiency (such as improving its ability to 

process requests electronically and investigating the acquisition of an 

improved automated tracking system) and to monitor and analyze 

backlogged requests to determine whether systemic changes are warranted 

in its processes. Given NSF’s minimal backlog and other improvement 

activities planned, the treatment of backlog reduction in its plan seems 

reasonable. A third agency, HUD, set a measurable goal for reducing 

backlog, but did not include a date by which it planned to achieve it. 

However, it achieved this goal, according to agency officials, by November 

2006.41

39Pending 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.

40NSF’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.

41HUD 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 38 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

The goals chosen by the 22 remaining agencies varied considerably (which 

is consistent with the flexibility in choosing measures that Justice provided 

in its implementation guidance). Some agencies linked backlog reduction 

to various different measures. For example, EPA’s goal was to reduce its 

response backlog to less than 10 percent of the number of new FOIA 

requests received each year. Energy set a goal of achieving a 50 percent 

reduction by June 2007 in the number of pending FOIA cases that were 

over 1 year old. NRC chose to focus on improving processing times, setting 

percentage goals for completion of different types of requests (for 

example, completing 75 percent of simple requests within 20 days). Labor’s 

plan sets goals that aim for larger percentages of reduction for the oldest 

categories of pending requests (75 percent reduction for the oldest, 50 

percent reduction for the next oldest, and so on). A number of agencies 

included goals to close their oldest 5 to 10 requests (Justice, the Treasury, 

Education, Commerce, Defense, GSA, NASA, SSA, and VA). According to 

the Attorney General’s report to the President, in concentrating on their 

oldest requests, many agencies followed Justice’s lead.42

OPM and DHS plan to eliminate their backlogs, Transportation is planning 

to substantially reduce previous fiscal year backlogs, 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. For 

example, Labor’s plan includes activities to monitor and determine the 

department’s oldest pending requests. The plan states that Labor will use as 

its baseline the number of requests that it identifies as pending for various 

lengths of time as of December 31, 2006. Similarly, Defense’s plan included 

activities to establish backlog levels and use these as the basis for its 

objective of reducing backlog by 10 percent annually. 

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 

42Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Report to the President Pursuant to Executive 

Order 13,392, Entitled “Improving Agency Disclosure of Information” (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 16, 2006). www.usdoj.gov/oip/ag_report_to_president_13392.pdf
Page 39 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

milestones) as reengineering its multitrack FOIA process, monitoring 

monthly reports, and establishing a FOIA council. 

The agency plans thus provide a variety of activities and measures of 

improvement that should permit agency heads, the Congress, and the 

public to assess the agencies’ success in implementing their plans to reduce 

backlog.

Most Agencies Plan to 

Increase Public 

Dissemination of Records 

through Web Sites

The Executive Order calls for “increased reliance on the dissemination of 

records that can be made available to the public” without the necessity of a 

FOIA request, such as through posting on Web sites. In its guidance, Justice 

notes that agencies are required by FOIA to post frequently requested 

records, policy statements, staff manuals and instructions to staff, and final 

agency opinions. It encourages agencies not only to review their activities 

to meet this requirement, but also to make other public information 

available that might reduce the need to make FOIA requests. It also 

suggests that agencies consider improving FOIA Web sites to ensure that 

they are user friendly and up to date.

Agency plans generally established goals and timetables for increasing 

reliance on public dissemination of records, including through Web sites. 

Of 25 agencies, 24 included plans to revise agency Web sites and add 

information to them, and 12 of these are making additional efforts to 

ensure that frequently requested documents are posted on their Web sites. 

For example, Defense is planning to increase the number of its components 

that have Web sites as well as posting frequently requested documents. 

Interior is planning to facilitate the posting of frequently requested 

documents by using scanning and redaction equipment to make electronic 

versions readily available. 

Agencies planned other related activities, such as making posted 

documents easier to find, improving navigation, and adding other helpful 

information. For example, besides reviewing its Web site to verify and add 

links, 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. Besides adding frequently requested documents, CIA plans 

to improve navigation and review its site quarterly. 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 
Page 40 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

requests for similar information and then post such information on its Web 

site.43 Based on its FOIA review, NRC determined that it would be helpful to 

requesters for the agency to provide examples of the types of information 

in NRC documents that might be covered by FOIA exemptions, and it 

established goals to achieve this. 

The Treasury plan does not address increasing public dissemination of 

records. Treasury’s plan, as mentioned earlier, is focused on backlog 

reduction. It does not mention the other areas emphasized in the Executive 

Order, list them among the areas it selected for review, or explain the 

decision to omit them from the review and plan. Treasury officials told us 

that they concentrated in their plan on areas where they determined the 

department had a deficiency: namely, a backlog consisting of numerous 

requests, some of which were very old (dating as far back as 1991). By 

comparison, they did not consider they had deficiencies in the other areas. 

With regard to increasing dissemination, they noted that their Web sites 

currently provide frequently requested records. However, without a careful 

review of the department’s current dissemination practices or a plan to 

take actions to increase dissemination, 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 

43This is distinct from multiple requests for the same document, which are already covered 

by the FOIA provision that directs agencies to post frequently requested documents.
Page 41 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

response letters, and posting contact information on Web pages. Both 

NASA and Interior planned to establish toll free numbers for requesters to 

obtain status information. NASA also included plans to acquire software 

that would allow a requester to access and track status of his or her 

request. Interior planned to develop and post frequently asked questions to 

provide requesters with information about where to submit their requests, 

processing times, fees charged, and how to check on the status of their 

requests. HUD’s plan included posting information on its Web site, 

providing training on customer service, and gauging progress through 

public forums at which it can receive comments on improving FOIA 

performance.

Three agencies did not include improvement goals because they 

considered them unnecessary. In two cases (Defense and EPA), agencies 

considered that status communications were already an area of strength.

Defense considered that it was strong in both customer responsiveness and 

communications. Defense performed extensive surveys of the opinions and 

practices of its FOIA staff and Public Liaisons44 and concluded that “FOIA 

personnel routinely contact requesters to try to resolve problems and to 

better define requests.” 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. Defense 

officials also told us that this information is included in acknowledgement 

letters to requesters. In addition, these officials stated that planned 

revisions to Defense FOIA Web sites would promote improving status 

communications, 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 

44The department surveyed its component Chief Public Liaison Officers as well as personnel 

in Defense FOIA offices. Department staff were asked to indicate, among other things, what 

activities they perform in communicating with requesters (including acknowledgement of 

request receipt, notification of request referral, interim communication at approximately 20 

working days, and so on) and to estimate what percentage of requests required requesters to 

be contacted. According to Defense, an average of 80 percent of respondents reported that 

they routinely performed various actions communicating with requesters. Department 

officials also told us that Defense is in the process of collecting feedback from the requester 

community.
Page 42 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

agencies were already in effect at EPA. 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. Officials also stated that EPA holds regular FOIA 

requester forums, the last held on November 1, 2006, and that EPA’s 

requester community had expressed satisfaction with EPA’s 

responsiveness. EPA’s response to the Executive Order describes its efforts 

to communicate with requesters, including activities of staff at its FOIA 

Service Center and a FOIA hotline through which callers may receive 

information on the status of their requests. It also describes the enterprise 

FOIA management system, deployed in 2005, that provides “cradle to 

grave” tracking of incoming requests and responses. 

The third agency, Treasury, did not address improving status 

communications, as its plan is entirely focused on backlog reduction. As 

required by the Executive Order, Treasury did set up Requester Service 

Centers and Public Liaisons, which are among the mechanisms envisioned 

to improve status communications. However, because 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 such attention to 

communication with requesters, Treasury increases the risk that its FOIA 

operations will not be as responsive and citizen centered as the Executive 

Order envisioned. 

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 
Page 43 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

outreach: for example, the Department of State reported taking steps to 

obtain feedback from the public on how to improve FOIA processes; GSA 

plans to post information about what GSA can and cannot release; 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. The department also established Requester Service Centers 

and Public Liaisons, as required. 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 public access 

and other objectives. 

As mentioned earlier, Treasury did not address this area in its review or 

plan. However, Treasury has established Requester Service Centers and 

FOIA Public Liaisons, as required. Treasury’s Director of Disclosure 

Services45 also told us that 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 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 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 might not provide assurance to the public that the 

information provided was fully up to date, reducing its effectiveness as a 

communication tool. Without further attention to increasing public 

awareness, 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. 

45This 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 44 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Conclusions The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information about 

citizens’ use of this important tool to obtain information about the 

operation and decisions of the federal government. The value of this 

information clearly depends, however, on its accuracy. In the case of the 

USDA’s Farm Service Agency, which is not assured of the accuracy of its 

data, the department’s FOIA improvement plan is an opportunity to address 

data reliability along with other processing improvements. In addition, one 

value of the annual reports lies in the possibility they provide of seeing 

trends and drawing generalizations. However, our ability to generalize 

about processing times, whether from agency to agency or year to year, is 

limited because only median times are reported. Since processing times are 

an important gauge of government responsiveness to citizen inquiries, this 

limitation is significant. Medians are useful as representative numbers that 

are not skewed by a few outliers, but the addition of averages (arithmetic 

means) and ranges would enhance the ability to make useful comparisons 

and provide a more complete picture. Finally, in the absence of aggregated 

statistics and summaries, as formerly provided by the Justice Department, 

it is difficult to obtain a governmentwide picture of FOIA processing. 

Providing such statistics and summaries could increase the value of the 

annual reporting process for assessing the performance of the FOIA 

program as a whole. 

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. The 25 agencies submitted 

FOIA improvement plans that generally responded to elements emphasized 

by the Executive Order and form a reasonable basis for carrying out the 

order’s goals. In general, all the plans show a commendable focus on 

making measurable improvements. One agency (Treasury) submitted a 

plan that could be improved by closer adherence to the other elements, 

besides backlog, specified by the Executive Order. 

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. 
Page 45 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration

To improve the usefulness of the statistics in agency annual FOIA reports, 

the Congress should consider amending the act to require agencies to 

report additional statistics on processing time, which at a minimum should 

include average times and ranges. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To provide a clearer picture of FOIA processing both in a given year and 

over time, we recommend that the Attorney General direct Justice’s Office 

of Information and Privacy to use data from annual reports to develop 

summaries and aggregate statistics (as appropriate) for categories of 

agencies (such as major departments), as well as governmentwide. 

To ensure that USDA data in FOIA annual reports are accurate and 

complete, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief 

FOIA Officer for the department to revise the department’s FOIA 

improvement plan to include activities, goals, and milestones to improve 

data reliability for the Farm Service Agency and to monitor results. 

To ensure that its plan includes an appropriate focus on communicating 

with requesters and the public, we recommend that the Secretary of the 

Treasury direct the department’s Chief FOIA Officer to review its FOIA 

operations in the other areas emphasized in the Executive Order 

(increasing reliance on public dissemination of records, improving 

communications with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests, 

and increasing public awareness of FOIA processing) and, as appropriate, 

revise the improvement plan for fiscal year 2007 to include goals and 

milestones in these areas.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 25 agencies for review 

and comment. All but one agency (the Department of the Treasury) 

generally agreed with our assessment and recommendations or had no 

comment.46 Seven agencies provided written comments: the Departments 

of Agriculture, Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, along with AID, 

EPA, and NSF (printed in apps. II through VIII). In addition, OMB, the 

46No comments were offered by 13 agencies: the Departments of Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security, Labor, and State, as well as CIA, GSA, NASA, 

NRC, and SBA.
Page 46 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Interior, Transportation, HUD, OPM, and SSA provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

The Acting Director of Justice’s Office of Information and Policy concurred 

with our assessment and stated that Justice agrees with our 

recommendation and plans to implement it (see app. III). The Acting 

Director stated that the office plans to resume compiling summaries of the 

annual reports, beginning with those for fiscal year 2006. 

The Chief FOIA Officer of Agriculture provided additional information on 

actions that the department has taken to improve FOIA processing, as well 

as actions that the Farm Service Agency is taking to ensure that its data are 

reliable (see app. II). 

Except for Treasury, other agencies providing written comments generally 

provided additional information on their FOIA programs or provided 

suggestions on the draft.

• EPA and NSF offered additional information about their FOIA 

operations. 

• Both VA and AID stated their view that ample time should be given to 

accommodate reporting changes. 

• VA also suggested including cases both received and processed in our 

discussion of the increase in pending requests. We augmented the 

section on pending requests to include a reference to statistics on cases 

received and processed. 

In written and e-mail comments, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Headquarters Operations indicated that the department generally agreed 

with our premise that Treasury’s plan needs to more thoroughly integrate 

the Executive Order and noted that the plan is a living, dynamic document 

that will accommodate changing circumstances. (Treasury’s written 

comments are provided in app. IV.) The Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

stated that the department will be evaluating its improvement plan and 

taking action to improve its FOIA administration. However, Treasury also 

partially disagreed with our assessment, and it disagreed with our 

recommendation. 

According to Treasury, our assessment and recommendation minimize the 

importance of reducing backlog in the Executive Order and Justice 
Page 47 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

guidance and do not give sufficient weight to other aspects of its 

improvement plan, such as the establishment of a FOIA council to improve 

FOIA administration, the establishment of FOIA Requester Service Centers 

and Public Liaisons, and its compliance with the e-FOIA amendments’ 

requirement that frequently posted records be posted on agency Web sites. 

Further, Treasury considered that our assessment does not sufficiently 

recognize the activities and programs that the department already had in 

place (beyond backlog reduction) before the order was issued, which were 

not included in its plan (such as technology improvements to upgrade the 

department’s FOIA tracking system in 2005 and to upgrade IRS databases). 

We do not believe that we minimize the importance of reducing backlog; 

our report indicates that this is a major focus of the Executive Order. 

However, it was not the only focus of the Executive Order, which also 

emphasized a citizen-centered approach to FOIA implementation. The 

three areas of emphasis that we suggest would benefit from further 

attention are all related to a citizen-centered approach in that they focus on 

communication with the public and especially with requesters. It may be 

that Treasury’s FOIA council will provide this focus; however, this was not 

clear from the agency’s plan, which included no milestones or goals in 

these areas to guide the council’s future activities. 

We also disagree with Treasury’s view that we do not give sufficient weight 

to the activities that the plan included or that Treasury officials indicated 

were already in progress. Although we took these into account, they did not 

provide evidence that Treasury was already giving or planned to give the 

level of attention to the three areas of emphasis that was envisioned by the 

Executive Order. For example, although Treasury’s compliance with the 

1996 e-FOIA amendments is important, the Executive Order asks agencies 

to look for opportunities to go beyond complying with legal requirements 

to disseminate records. Similarly, although the technology improvements 

that Treasury described have the potential to improve FOIA processing 

(including improvements in the three areas of emphasis), the plan did not 

tie these improvements and actions to goals or milestones in the three 

areas. As a result, we did not change our assessment. However, we have 

clarified the language of the report to emphasize that our assessment is 

based on meeting the level of attention emphasized in the Executive Order. 

We note, however, that Treasury in its comments indicates that it does plan 

to continue to reevaluate its improvement plan and modify it to 

accommodate changing circumstances. If future modifications specifically 
Page 48 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

address external communications, particularly with requesters, the goal of 

our recommendation may be achieved.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of departments and 

agencies we reviewed. Copies will be made available to others on request. 

In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 

at www.gao.gov.

If you should have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-6240 or via e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix XI.

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues
Page 49 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To gauge agencies’ progress in processing requests, we analyzed the 

workload data (from fiscal year 2002 through 2005) included in the 25 

agencies’ annual FOIA reports to assess trends in volume of requests 

received and processed, median processing times, and the number of 

pending cases. All agency workload data were self-reported in annual 

reports submitted to the Attorney General. 

To assess the reliability of the information contained in agency annual 

reports, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and assessed 

quality control processes agencies had in place. We selected 10 agencies to 

assess data reliability: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense, 

Education, the Interior, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Small 

Business Administration, and Social Security Administration. We chose the 

Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs because they 

processed a majority of the requests. To ensure that we selected agencies 

of varying size, we chose the remaining 8 agencies by ordering them 

according to the number of requests they received, from smallest to largest, 

and choosing every third agency. These 10 agencies account for 97 percent 

of the received requests that were reported in the 25 agencies’ annual 

reports.

Of the 10 agencies that were assessed for data reliability, we determined 

that the data for USDA’s Farm Service Agency were not reliable; these data 

account for over 80 percent of the reported USDA data. We therefore 

eliminated USDA’s data from our analysis. Because of this elimination, our 

analysis was of 24 major agencies1

 (herein we refer to this scope as 

governmentwide). Table 9 shows the 25 agencies and their reliability 

assessment status.

1

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. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Table 9: Agencies Reviewed

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 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 

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
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

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.2 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 

January 2007 in Washington, D.C. 

2

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 52 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of 

Agriculture

Page 53 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans
Page 54 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Justice ApendxiI

Telephone: (202) 514-3642

February 20, 2007

Linda D. Koontz

Director

Information Management

Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Ms. Koontz:

u.s. Department of Justice

Office of Information and Privacy

Washington, D. C. 20530

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government Accountability

Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled "Freedom ofInformation Act: Processing Trends Show

Importance ofImprovement Plans" (GAO-07-441). The Department believes that GAO's draft

report accurately depicts the status and trends ofFOIA processing at twenty-five major agencies

as reflected in those agencies' annual reports and FOIA improvement plans required by Executive

Order 13,392.

We would like to take this opportunity to address GAO's recommendation that the Department of

Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) use the data collected in agencies' annual

reports to develop summaries of governmentwide FOIA activities. As noted in GAO's draft

report, in the past, although not required to do so under the law, OIP compiled summaries of the

annual FOIA reports and made these available through Justice's FOIA Web page. The

Department agrees with GAO that such summaries provide the public and the Congress a

governmentwide picture ofFOIA processing. Accordingly, OIP will resume compiling the

aforementioned summaries beginning with a summary of the fiscal year 2006 annual reports.

These summaries will follow the same format and include the same type of information as

provided in OIP's prior summaries.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report, and we look forward to

additional collaboration in our efforts to further improve FOIA processing governmentwide.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Richard P. Theis, Assistant

Director, Audit Liaison Group on (202) 514-0469.

Sincerely,

""~~~

Melanie Ann Pustay

Acting Director

Office of Information and Privacy
Page 55 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury 

Page 56 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans
Page 57 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs ApendxiV
Page 58 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix VI

Comments from the Agency for International 

Development ApendxiVI
Page 59 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix VII

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiVI
Page 60 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix VIII

Comments from the National Science 

Foundation ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments from the National Science 

Foundation

Page 61 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans
Page 62 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix IX

Freedom of Information Act Exemptions ApendxiIX

The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that is exempt 

from disclosure:

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

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.
Page 63 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported ApendxiX

The attached tables present median processing times as reported by 

agencies in their annual FOIA reports in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. To 

provide context, we include numbers of requests processed for each 

agency or component. We also indicate (in columns headed “±”) whether 

the median days to process rose (+), fell (–), or remained unchanged (=). 

(We also use “~” to indicate other types of changes, such as the 

establishment of a new component.)

Agencies report median processing times according to processing tracks: 

that is, some agencies divide requests into simple and complex categories 

and process these in separate tracks, whereas others use a single track. 

Accordingly, the tables show these tracks where applicable. In addition, 

agencies are required to subject some requests to expedited processing, 

and these are reported as a separate track. 

Tables for the agencies are presented in the following order, which 

corresponds to the order generally used in the figures and tables provided 

in the statement:

AID Agency for International Development

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

ED Department of Education

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Science Foundation

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 64 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Agency for 

International 

Development

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease 

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Central Intelligence 

Agency

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

State Department of State

Treas Department of the Treasury

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

(Continued From Previous Page)

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

AID 209 196 54 55 + 3 1 13 34 +

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

CIA 501 577 7 7 = 2,834 2,533 63 68 + 1 0 10 n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 65 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of 

Homeland Security

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Component did not exist.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Office of the 

Secretary/ Privacy 

Office 279 604 19 16 – 98 134 66 102 + 48 1 9 11 +

Office of the 

Inspector General n/a 0 n/a n/a 21 14 44 91 + 0 3 n/a 5

Office of the General 

Counsel (a) 0 (a) n/a ~ (a) 1 (a) 222 ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

Information Analysis 

& Infrastructure 

Protection n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a 51 n/a 30 ~ n/a 0 n/a n/a

Emergency 

Preparedness & 

Response 101 186 14 61 + 128 345 48 178 + 28 14 9 45 +

Science & 

Technology (a) 1 (a) 30 ~ (a) 1 (a) 210 ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

U.S. Coast Guard 6,735 6,035 13 16 + 638 608 21 21 = 30 11 11 2 –

U.S. Secret Service 0 0 n/a n/a 912 701 111 149 + 0 0 n/a n/a 

U.S. Citizenship & 

Immigration 

Services 105,567 85,307 16 45 + 27,850 19,532 31 55 + 580 95 8 15 +

US-VISIT (a) 14 (a) 17 ~ (a) 1 (a) 60 ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

Border & 

Transportation 

Security 

CBP 2,317 3,174 20 17 – 1,986 3,815 30 12 – 4 890 3 17 +

TSA 828 11 8 16 + 1,307 1,199 29 13 – 2 2 45 28 –

ICE 1,124 661 84 35 – n/a 881 n/a 242 ~ n/a 0 n/a n/a

FLETC n/a 0 n/a n/a ~ 1,451 1,834 5 3 – 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 66 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of 

Commerce

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Department of Defense No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Commerce 1,564 1,321 13 12 – 465 511 41 40 – 6 2 5 8 + 

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Defense 63,443 66,979 17 16 – 12,972 11,385 59 85 + 841 411 1 0 –
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 67 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of Energy No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

National Nuclear 

Security 

Administration 

Service Center 

Albuquerque 118 76 30 15 – 99 108 58 170 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Bonneville Power 

Administration 54 54 12 20 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Carlsbad Field Office 0 654 n/a 20 10 14 35 57 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Chicago Operations 

Office 0 36 n/a 21 38 0 21 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Golden Field Office 21 11 14 33 + 2 1 20.5 66 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Idaho Operations 

Office 45 46 11 13 + 34 34 41 36 – 0 0 n/a n/a

National Energy 

Technology 

Operations 9 7 20 10 – 9 26 25 30 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Naval 

Reactors (a) 7 (a) 10 ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

Oak Ridge 

Operations Office 1,012 970 158 31 – 139 42 257 112 – 30 14 7 12 +

Ohio Environmental 

Management 

Consolidated 

Business Center 89 156 152 28 – 0 0 n/a n/a 10 0 5 n/a ~

Office of Repository 

Development 42 71 15 19 + 29 13 60 73 + 0 0 n/a 0

Richland Operations 

Office 0 190 n/a 31 115 0 18 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Rocky Flats 

Environmental 

Management 

Consolidated 

Business Center 0 794 n/a 106 16 0 916 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Savannah River 

Operations Office 65 40 61 73 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Scientific 

and Technical 

Information 1 3 1 10 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 68 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Component did not exist.

Southeastern Power 

Administration 3 0 10 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Southwestern Power 

Administration 5 4 10 5 – 0 2 n/a 10 0 0 n/a n/a

Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve 13 13 10 21 + 0 2 n/a 82 0 4 n/a 1

Western Area Power 

Administration 35 40 10 10 = 2 4 20 15 – 0 1 n/a 5

Department of 

Energy Headquarters 395 384 81 41 – 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 69 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of the 

Interior

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Statistics not broken down by component.

Note: The Department of Interior reported the number of requests processed as a department, not by 

individual components. The Department of Interior reports simple, normal, and complex tracks. The 

range used for simple requests contains both simple and normal requests.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Department of the 

Interior 4,126 6,206 3–834 2–43 ~ 30 189 56–99 28–89 ~ 63 25 2–64 1–15 ~ 

Office of the 

Secretary (a) (a) 3–48 2–12 (a) (a) 99 89 – (a) (a) 64 2 –

Office of Inspector 

General (a) (a) 834 7 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) 2 1 –

Office of the Solicitor (a) (a) 15 18 + (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) n/a n/a

Office of Surface 

Mining (a) (a) 21 13 – (a) (a) 0 55 + (a) (a) n/a n/a

Minerals 

Management 

Service (a) (a) 22 8–20 ~ (a) (a) n/a 28 (a) (a) 14 n/a

Bureau of Land 

Management (a) (a) 13–21 23 (a) (a) 56 57 + (a) (a) 5 6 +

Fish and Wildlife 

Service (a) (a) 35 29 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) 10 15 +

National Park 

Service (a) (a) 20 19 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) 10 n/a

Bureau of 

Reclamation (a) (a) 20 18 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) 8 1 –

U.S. Geological 

Survey (a) (a) 18 14 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) n/a n/a

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (a) (a) 158 43 – (a) (a) n/a n/a (a) (a) n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 70 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of Justice No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Office of the 

Attorney General 401 213 17 27 + 23 35 480 362 – 2 3 135 96 –

Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General 246 108 17 29 + 15 10 291 363 + 0 2 n/a 62

Office of the 

Associate Attorney 

General 52 40 44 89 + 4 0 344 n/a 1 2 47 112 +

Antitrust Division 145 131 18 19 + 13 14 412 484 + 1 0 18 n/a

Bureau of Prisons 15,047 13,243 15 16 + 680 475 28 29 + 13 25 1 3 +

Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 2,437 1,719 7 8 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Civil Division 859 466 9 10 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 n/a 7

Civil Rights Division 473 565 8 8 = 60 100 283 359 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Community 

Relations Service 8 2 10 10 = 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Criminal Division 0 0 n/a n/a 1,414 1,291 16 35 + 2 1 31 97 +

Drug Enforcement 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 1,933 1,569 12 16 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Environment and 

Natural Resources 

Division 0 0 n/a n/a 177 145 40 53 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Executive Office for 

Immigration Review 7,811 9,367 29 43 + 681 476 89 149 + 65 27 26 44 +

Executive Office for 

United States 

Attorneys 4,848 3,751 46 58 + 0 0 n/a n/a 73 84 195 169 –

Executive Office for 

United States 

Trustees 0 0 n/a n/a 61 65 6 19 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 10,253 10,828 6 6 = (b) (b) n/a n/a 35 14 41 42 +

Foreign Claims 

Settlement 

Commission 17 9 5 5 = 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 71 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Justice 

Management 

Division 3,128 2,130 8 (c) 31 35 35 (c) 0 0 n/a n/a

National Drug 

Intelligence Center 80 58 22 21 – 3 3 30 73 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing 

Services 101 61 14 8 – 0 0 n/a n/a 2 0 6 n/a

Office of Dispute 

Resolution 8 4 5 5 = 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the Federal 

Detention Trustee 27 11 7 8 + 2 0 105 n/a 0 1 n/a 7

Office of Information 

and Privacy 434 443 12 13 + 1 1 397 52 – 0 1 n/a 185

Office of the 

Inspector General 241 208 10 11.5 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Intelligence 

Policy and Review 28 33 8 6 – 6 17 27 31 + 0 2 n/a 16

Office of 

Intergovernmental 

and Public Liaison 15 6 41 46 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 1 n/a 38

Office of Justice 

Programs 493 206 1 2 + 59 108 25 25 = 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Legal 

Counsel 55 68 10 10 = 9 16 30 30 = 0 1 n/a 40

Office of Legal 

Policy 47 76 37 58 + 2 3 188 863 + 0 2 n/a 28

Office of Legislative 

Affairs 58 63 84 86 + 6 9 386 330 – 0 2 n/a 67

Office of the Pardon 

Attorney 40 43 29 21 – 3 0 100 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of 

Professional 

Responsibility 129 86 19 15 – 7 9 389 334 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Public 

Affairs 20 22 137 139 + 3 3 226 730 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the 

Solicitor General 73 64 60 60 = 0 0 n/a n/a 2 22 8 10 +

Office on Violence 

Against Women (a) 14 (a) 50 ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

(Continued From Previous Page)

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 72 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Component did not exist.

b

In addition to the expedited track, the FBI maintains three tracks for requests: small (0 to 500 pages), 

medium (501 to 2,500 pages), and large (more than 2,500 pages). The former is reported in the 

“simple requests” category; the latter two are reported as “complex requests.” Therefore FBI’s complex 

requests were excluded from analysis. 

c

Justice Management Division used average days opposed to median days, so it was excluded. 

Professional 

Responsibility 

Advisory Office 13 14 3 3.5 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Tax Division 226 237 0 0 = 27 26 15 28 + 0 0 n/a n/a

U.S. Marshals 

Service 1,531 999 21 26 + 16 17 130 195.5 + 0 0 n/a n/a

U.S. National 

Central Bureau--

INTERPOL 271 184 5 6 + 10 18 24 21 – 2 3 3 2 –

U.S. Parole 

Commission 0 0 n/a n/a 1,351 1,011 20 12 – 0 0 n/a n/a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 73 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of Labor No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration 8,410 7,855 7 13 + 2,695 3,431 18 45 + 34 82 4 18 +

Employment 

Standards 

Administration 6,670 6,948 17 13 – 1,057 904 23 37 + 89 73 5 9 +

Mine Safety and 

Health Administration 1,150 0 17 n/a 0 1,058 n/a 20 0 3 n/a 7

Employment and 

Training 

Administration 480 270 15 20 + 35 94 20 30 + 1 5 2 10 +

Employee Benefits 

Security 

Administration 367 1,456 11 7 – 65 257 40 34 – 0 2 n/a 10

Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

for Administration 

and Management 152 151 13 13 = 62 35 20 26 + 1 1 2 4 +

Administrative Law 

Judges 215 206 2 10 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 6 n/a 3

Veterans’ 

Employment and 

Training Service 71 87 27 10 – 15 19 29 39 + 2 1 8 8 =

Office of the 

Inspector General 71 47 30 28 – 8 28 60 50 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 56 54 13 17 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Adjudicatory 

Services 25 52 7 6 – 4 0 18 n/a 2 0 2 n/a

Womens Bureau 27 19 15 10 – 0 2 n/a 25 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Disability 

Employment Policy 12 23 20 30 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

for Policy 3 16 25 20 – 2 1 25 60 + 1 0 25 n/a

Office of 

Congressional and 

Intergovernmental 

Affairs 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 74 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Bureau of 

International Labor 

Affairs 4 24 16 7 – 9 2 30 14 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer 12 8 10 7 – 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Public 

Affairs 7 8 7 7 = 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Small 

Business Programs 22 22 30 10 – 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the Solicitor 62 30 12 14 + 7 3 54 30 – 0 1 n/a 2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 75 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of 

Transportation

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Office of the 

Secretary of 

Transportation 320 150 1 1 = 394 87 82 77 – 0 10 n/a 30

Office of Inspector 

General 60 50 6 8 + 46 34 51 64 + 3 0 57 n/a

Federal Aviation 

Administration 5,162 4,401 4 3 – 2,231 2,179 31 28 – 45 46 8 9 +

Federal Highway 

Administration 331 294 9 16 + 30 31 30 134 + 0 17 n/a 13

Federal Railroad 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 524 451 95 90 – 0 0 n/a n/a

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 367 263 23 20 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Federal Transit 

Administration 192 199 68 29 – 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Saint Lawrence 

Seaway 

Development 

Corporation 36 0 18 n/a 0 33 n/a 20 0 0 n/a n/a

Maritime 

Administration 0 124 n/a 30 155 0 30 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Research and 

Special Programs 

Administration 85 43 19 15 – 89 75 135 40 – 11 1 5 5 =

Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 778 823 58 31 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Bureau of 

Transportation 

Statistics 46 67 5 11 + 0 6 n/a 20 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 76 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of

Education 

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Environmental 

Protection Agency

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Education 1,566 1,874 0–30 35 ~ 442 329 2–134 66 ~ 74 16 3–21 24 ~

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Headquarters 2,188 1,717 19 19 = 1 42 170 58 – 6 2 16 20 +

Region 1 New 

England Region 317 249 19 18 – 0 2 29 46 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Region 2 New 

Jersey, New York, 

Puerto Rico, U.S. 

Virgin Islands and 7 

Tribal Nations 2,949 1,912 27 30 + 7 2 49 40 – 1 1 9 8 –

Region 3 Mid-Atlantic 1,748 1,699 15 13 – 0 9 n/a 4 1 0 7 n/a

Region 4 Southeast 

Region 1,034 852 21 19 – 5 71 75 41 – 1 0 6 n/a

Region 5 Mid-West 

Region 2,011 1,920 18 18 = 2 3 70 30 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Region 6 South 

Central Region 860 624 18 32 + 1 0 353 n/a 0 2 n/a 109

Region 7 America’s 

Heartland Region 651 767 23 27 + 0 2 n/a 166 0 0 n/a n/a

Region 8 Mountains 

and Plains Region 387 332 13 15 + 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 77 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

General Services 

Administration

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Region 9 Pacific 

Southwest Region 725 588 16 18 + 0 39 n/a 38 1 0 6 n/a

Region 10 Pacific 

Northwest Region 454 273 20 20 = 1 0 19 n/a 1 0 27 n/a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

GSA 0 0 n/a n/a 1,182 1,561 14 14 = 0 0 n/a n/a 
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 78 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of Health 

and Human Services

Two tables are provided for this department, because its components 

report both multitrack (simple and complex) processing and single-track 

processing.

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Simple Complex

No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Office of the Secretary 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Administration for Children 

and Families (a) 0 (a) n/a ~ (a) 0 (a) n/a ~

Administration on Aging 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services 31,051 33,583 9 10 + 652 722 77 86 +

Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public Health 72 179 10 10 = 446 611 60 60 =

Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Food and Drug Administration 13,626 15,539 25 26 + 1,993 1,987 325 370 +

Health Resources and 

Services Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Indian Health Services 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

National Institutes of Health 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Office of the Secretary 1,147 934 55 69 + 1 1 2 60 +

Administration for Children 

and Families (a) 137 (a) 40 ~ (a) 4 (a) 41 ~

Administration on Aging 13 22 5 5 = 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 79 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Component did not exist.

Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services 0 0 n/a n/a 11 42 66 158 +

Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public Health 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality 76 94 25 34 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention 977 1,134 36 36 = 2 2 52 52 =

Food and Drug Administration 2,921 1,007 113 86 – 0 2 n/a 100

Health Resources and 

Services Administration 416 380 20 20 = 0 6 n/a 14

Indian Health Services 158,277 151,428 32 32 = 0 0 n/a n/a

National Institutes of Health 10,583 13,382 182 173 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services 

Administration 132 206 38 45 + 0 0 n/a n/a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 80 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of Housing 

and Urban 

Development 

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Headquarters 1,676 984 95 65 – 248 271 161 160 – 70 74 42 22 –

Field 1,510 1,150 21 21 = 10 15 30 35 + 95 160 23 70 +

Office of Inspector 

General 354 254 55 45 – 0 0 n/a n/a 15 15 9 9 =

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

NASA 1,069 938 18 19 + 454 410 33 49 + 44 3 26 15 –
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 81 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

National Science 

Foundation

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

NRC 357 303 11 12 + 27 28 47 75 + 5 14 60 20 – 

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004

200

5 2004 2005 ±

NSF 309 266 20 14 – 0 0 n/a n/a 
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 82 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Office of Personnel 

Management

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Small Business 

Administration

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

OPM 9,310 10,900 9 14 + 0 2 n/a 1 

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

SBA 1,927 3,737 5 7 + 0 0 n/a n/a 
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 83 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Social Security 

Administration

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Note: The tables exclude SSA’s category of “simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff” and “simple 

request for Social Security number applications and other Office of Earnings Operations records.” The 

category SSA labels “fast track” was reported under “single track.” 

Department of State No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

SSA 397 364 19 15 – 882 1,014 37 39 +

Single Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

SSA 1,321 1,555 14 10 – 0 31 n/a 17

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Agency 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

State 1,236 1,647 6 14 + 3,710 2,216 209 142 – 17 7 184 136 –
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 84 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of the 

Treasury

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

Simple Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

The Departmental 

Offices 332 307 2 2 = 782 790 172 251 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade 

Bureau 0 168 n/a 86 201 17 78 93 + 0 1 n/a 1

Office of the 

Comptroller of the 

Currency 322 4,635 10 2 – 8,030 179 50 73 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Bureau of Engraving 

and Printing 69 76 4 3 – 44 12 60 31 – 1 0 5 n/a

Financial 

Management Service 0 0 n/a n/a 529 351 7 10 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Internal Revenue 

Service 0 0 n/a n/a 51,985 42,533 21 21 = 0 0 n/a n/a

United States Mint 0 0 n/a n/a 67 316 15 15 = 0 0 n/a n/a

Bureau of the Public 

Debt 0 0 n/a n/a 91 90 4 3 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Thrift 

Supervision 0 0 n/a n/a 1,827 4,003 15 12 – 2 0 n/a n/a

Treasury Inspector 

General for Tax 

Administration 0 208 n/a 4 256 161 172 30 – 0 0 10 n/a

Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network 0 18 n/a 6 32 122 99 95 – 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 85 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

The department reports all processing in one track, but it refers to this 

track as complex, rather than single track.

No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± = 

change from 2004 to 2005

Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±

Acquisition & Material 

Management 376 289 4 2.5 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Administration 0 1,463 n/a 4 0 0 n/a n/a

Board of Contract Appeals 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Board of Veterans Appeals 1,006 1,049 49 19 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Congressional & Legislative 

Affairs 0 (a) n/a (a) ~ 0 (a) n/a (a) ~

Diversity Management & Equal 

Employment Opportunity 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

General Counsel 67 65 35 15 – 0 2 n/a 10

Human Resources Management 45 1 31.5 4 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Inspector General 347 287 10 16 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Information Technology Support 

Service 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Management 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

National Cemetery 

Administration 0 19 n/a 15 16 0 18 n/a

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Human Resources & 

Administration 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Public & Intergovernmental 

Affairs 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Budget 0 8 n/a 1 16 0 1 n/a

Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Intergovernmental 

Affairs 0 10 n/a 1 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Finance 58 63 15 11.5 – 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Information & 

Technology 53 72 11.5 51 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Office of Resolution Management 16 12 5 10 + 0 0 n/a n/a
Appendix X

Median Processing Times Reported 

Page 86 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

+ increase 

– decrease

= no change

~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)

Sources: Annual FOIA report, GAO analysis.

a

Component did not exist.

Office of Small & Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization 0 1 n/a 1 0 0 n/a n/a

Policy and Planning 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Public Affairs 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Security & Law Enforcement 0 (a) n/a (a) ~ 0 (a) n/a (a) ~

Office of the Secretary 16 6 45 60 + 0 0 n/a n/a

Veterans Benefits Administration 93,296 83,332 15 15.5 + 384 88 5 4.5 –

Veterans Canteen Service 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

Veterans Health Administration 1,699,079 1,814,837 4 1 – 20,730 13,409 1 1 =

White House Liaison 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Complex Expedited

No. Days No. Days

Component 2004 2005 2004 2005 ± 2004 2005 2004 2005 ±
Page 87 GAO-07-441 FOIA Implementation and Improvement Plans

Appendix XI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiXI

GAO Contact Linda D. Koontz, (202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this report 

were made by Barbara Collier, Acting Assistant Director; Alan Stapleton, 

Assistant Director; James Ashley, Marisol Cruz; Wilfred Holloway; Vernetta 

Marquis; David Plocher; Kelly Shaw; Shawn Ward; and Elizabeth Zhao. 

(310766)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548