U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Survey Results on 

Access to Information Problems 

Encountered by 

Federal, State, and Local 

Accountability Organizations 

June 2006 

I-2006-006
U.S. Department of Justice i

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

 Accountability organizations such as federal and state offices of 

inspector general and state and local audit organizations are responsible for 

helping ensure that government operations use public resources wisely and 

achieve intended results. As part of these accountability responsibilities, 

access to government information is critical to conducting audits, 

evaluations, inspections, and investigations. If accountability organizations 

face obstacles in obtaining access to records and other information, they will 

have difficulty performing their important missions. 

To assess the nature and extent of information access problems and 

identify examples of successful strategies employed to gain access, the 

Government Accountability Office’s Domestic Working Group surveyed 

accountability organizations at the federal, state, and local levels. The 

Domestic Working Group is an informal group consisting of the Comptroller 

General of the United States and the heads of 18 federal, state, and local 

accountability organizations. With the assistance of the Government 

Accountability Office, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector 

General conducted the survey and compiled the results. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

The survey population included the Government Accountability Office, 

59 federal offices of inspector general, 64 state auditor offices, and 231 city 

and county accountability offices. In all, we sent the survey to 355

organizations and received completed surveys from 128 organizations.1 

 1 It is important to note that we cannot statistically project the survey results 

beyond these 128 organizations, and the results represent varying response rates of the 

organizations: federal 67 percent (40 respondents of 60 federal organizations); state 34 

percent (22 respondents of 64 state organizations), and local 29 percent (66 respondents of 

231 local organizations). Many of the percentages presented in the report for a question or 

set of questions correspond to a small number of survey respondents. The survey 

respondents are a variety of large, medium, and small accountability organizations with 

different workload levels for the functions they perform. These organizational variations 

can affect the meaning of the organizations’ responses. However, the scope of our survey 

did not include any analysis of the responses based on the size and workload of the 

organizations. These data considerations are explained in more detail in the Introduction 

section of the report.
U.S. Department of Justice ii

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Access to Information Problems Exist, But Overall They Are Not Large 

Problems for the Survey Respondents. 

For the many financial audits, performance audits, evaluations, 

inspections, and investigations that respondent organizations conduct each 

year, more than one-fourth of their responses overall reported that they 

experience no access problems. Generally, less than one-fifth of the 

responses indicated access to information problems in more than 25 

percent of reviews. 

Respondents’ Access Problems Have Generally Remained at the Same 

Level and Their Satisfaction With Accessing Information is High. 

Respondent organizations reported that the trend in access to 

information problems has remained about the same over the last three 

years. For all four functions (financial audits, performance audits, 

evaluations and inspections, and investigations), about three-fourths of the 

survey responses overall reported a stable trend. Also, for the past 3-year 

period, almost two-thirds of the responses indicated that organizations were 

“very satisfied” or “generally satisfied” with the trend in accessing 

information. 

For the “current” state of access to information, more than two-thirds 

of the responses were “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” 

Access Delays to Records and Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of 

Specific People Are More Common Problems for Respondents, but 

Denials of Records Are Not. 

However, federal, state, and local survey respondents reported that 

they usually face delays in obtaining access to records and to specific 

people. More than three-fourths of responses indicated that delays in 

obtaining records occurred “sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost 

always,” and almost two-thirds of responses reported unavailability/ 

uncooperativeness of specific people. Conversely, for denials of “most” or 

“specific” records, at least two-thirds of responses were “never” and “rarely.” 
U.S. Department of Justice iii

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Most Survey Respondents Did Not Consider Any Specific Factor as 

Playing a “Major or Very Major” Role in Inhibiting Access to 

Information. 

Out of the 12 inhibiting factors that respondent organizations were 

asked to rate, only one factor “The other organization’s management took 

too long to respond to requests for information” was rated much higher than 

the others as a “major or very major” concern.2 Of the other 11 factors, 

three were rated the highest: 1) “The other organization had 

privacy/confidentiality concerns,” 2) “The other organization said that it had 

insufficient personnel to satisfy your requests,” and 3) “The other 

organization said it already had too much work to satisfy your request.” 

More than two-thirds of survey responses indicated that the following 

factors played “no role” in access to information problems: 1) “The other 

organization indicated that the request for information was not in the 

appropriate format,” 2) “The other organizations said that it had insufficient 

funds to satisfy your requests,” and 3) “The other organization indicated 

that the request for information was ambiguous.” 

Survey Respondents Resolve Most of Their Access to Information 

Problems Through a Variety of Strategies. 

Survey respondents reported that satisfactory resolution of access 

problems occurs most of the time. With few exceptions, organizations 

reported successful resolution of access problems in the majority of their 

reviews. At least one-fourth of responses indicated resolution of problems 

in “All” financial audits, performance audits, evaluations and inspections, 

and investigations. 

Out of the nine strategies for resolving access problems that 

respondents were asked to rate, “Addressing issues early in the process to 

avoid access issues before they occur” was rated “very or moderately useful” 

by two-thirds of the responses, which was the highest response rate. 

Slightly more than half of the responses also rated as important strategies 

“Encouraging the other organization’s management to support providing 

access to information” and “Communicating frequently with other 

organizations to explain your missions, authority, and information 

requirements.” 

 2 Inhibiting factors are the reasons given by the organization or person under 

review for not providing access to information to the accountability organization requesting 

the information. 
U.S. Department of Justice iv

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

In their narrative comments, respondents stated that they also used as 

strategies: 1) Providing examples of acceptable documentation, 

2) Having persons knowledgeable with information technology work with the 

organization undergoing review to facilitate obtaining automated data, 

3) Protecting sensitive information in work papers, and 4) Ensuring reports 

do not contain sensitive information inappropriate for public issuance. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the accountability organizations that responded to the 

survey, we found that these respondents were generally satisfied with their 

access to information. Barriers in obtaining records and access to people 

are usually resolved successfully. The major issue that survey respondents 

identified was delays in receiving information. However, respondents 

reported that early intervention and frequent and clear communication with 

managers proved to be successful strategies for dealing with access 

problems. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose..............................................................1 

Scope and Methodology.................................................................2 

 Data Considerations .....................................................................5 

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

Prevalence of Access Problems ......................................................6 

 Trends in Access Problems..........................................................10 

 Types of Access Problems............................................................23 

 Factors Inhibiting Access to Information .....................................37 

Strategies Used to Access Information.........................................44 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................58 

APPENDIX I: Members of the Domestic Working Group ....................59 

APPENDIX II: Results of Closed-ended Questions ..............................60 
U.S. Department of Justice 1

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

INTRODUCTION 

Background and Purpose 

Accountability is a key concept in promoting and safeguarding effective 

and efficient government operations. Government officials and citizens need 

to know that resources are used wisely to achieve intended results from 

government programs and services. Organizations such as offices of 

inspector general, audit groups, and other internal review groups play an 

important role in assisting government officials to be accountable to the 

public.3 

Access to information is critical to these federal, state, and local 

accountability organizations performing audits, evaluations, inspections, 

and investigations. Because the quality of accountability work is dependent 

upon timely and complete information from organizations undergoing 

review, the Government Accountability Office’s Domestic Working Group 

surveyed selected accountability organizations nationwide to assess the 

nature and extent of information access problems encountered and the 

successful strategies employed to gain access. The Domestic Working 

Group is an informal group consisting of the Comptroller General of the 

United States and the heads of 18 federal, state, and local accountability 

organizations. A list of members is at Appendix I. With the assistance of 

the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Justice Office of 

the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) conducted the survey and compiled the 

results. 

 3 Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision, June 2003, General Accounting 

Office (now the Government Accountability Office). 
U.S. Department of Justice 2

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Scope and Methodology 

Under the auspices of the Domestic Working Group, the DOJ OIG 

surveyed Federal Inspectors General, State Auditors, and the selected 

county and municipal accountability organizations regarding their 

experiences with information access problems through a web-based survey 

conducted from September 15 through October 21, 2005. 

The survey was developed and pre-tested using representatives from 

federal, state, and local accountability organizations. The Government 

Accountability Office provided technical assistance to refine the survey, host 

the survey on its secure servers, and provide the survey responses at the 

end of the survey period. 

The survey requested information from accountability organizations in 

the following areas: 

• Sources of legal authority and satisfaction with the authority, 

• Trends in access to information problems by functions performed: 

o Financial Audits: Financial audits are primarily concerned with 

providing reasonable assurance that financial statements are 

presented fairly in all material respects in conformance with 

auditing and accounting principles. 

o Performance Audits: Performance audits provide an 

independent assessment of the performance and management 

of a program. Performance audits can encompass a wide 

variety of objectives, including objectives related to assessing 

program effectiveness and results, economy and efficiency, 

internal controls, compliance with legal or other requirements. 

o Evaluations/Inspections: Evaluations and inspections provide 

an in-depth assessment of a major program, function, or 

activity or a concise assessment of a specific office, event, issue, 

or problem. 

o Investigations: Investigations examine allegations of violations 

of laws, regulations, and administrative procedures. 

• Factors affecting access to information, and 

• Successful strategies for resolving access to information problems. 
U.S. Department of Justice 3

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

The survey population of accountability organizations was compiled 

from the list of federal offices of inspector general on the Internet website of 

the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency; from the membership list 

of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers; 

and from the membership list of the National Association of Local 

Government Auditors. Representatives from the California State Auditor’s 

Office and the County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Auditor’s Office (both 

members of the Domestic Working Group) provided the state and local 

membership lists. 

We sent the survey to the Government Accountability Office, 59 

federal offices of inspector general, 64 state auditor offices, and 231 city and 

county accountability offices in 43 states.4 The heads of organizations in 

the survey population were sent an initial survey invitation when the survey 

was released on the web, followed by two reminder e-mails. Of the 355 

surveys sent, we received completed surveys from 128 organizations: 40 of 

60 federal organizations (67 percent), 22 of 64 state organizations 

(34 percent), and 66 of 231 local organizations (29 percent). Figures 1 and 

2 show the number of respondents and functions performed by government 

group. 

Figure 1. Total Respondents by Government Group

40

22

66

128

0

50

100

150

Federal State Local Total

Government Group

Number of 

Respondents

Source: Survey responses to Question 1: Which of the following categories best describes your organization—

Federal, State, or Local? 

 4 The number of state auditor offices is greater than 50 because it includes the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and more than one accountability organization for some states as reflected on 

the membership list from the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers. 

Seven states did not have local accountability organizations on the membership list from the 

National Association of Local Government Auditors. We conducted an Internet search for major city 

and county accountability organizations within these states, but did not find any. Local governments 

may contract with private companies, such as auditing and accounting firms, to conduct 

accountability reviews of government operations. Also, some local governments may receive 

accountability oversight from state organizations such as state audit offices. 
U.S. Department of Justice 4

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 2. Functions Performed by Government Group

35 38

30

36

19 16

11 15

29

60

44 48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

Number of Respondents

Federal State Local

Source: Survey responses to Questions 9, 17, 25, and 33: Does your organization conduct financial 

audits? performance audits? evaluations/inspections? investigations?

Table 1 shows by function the average number of reviews conducted 

annually by survey respondents. 

Table 1. Average Number of Reviews Conducted Annually 

by Survey Respondents 

Financial Audits Performance 

Audits 

Evaluations/ 

Inspections Investigations 

Federal 28 56 19 228 

State 55 51 43 24 

Local 6 11 9 7 

Source: Survey responses to Questions 10, 18, 26, and 34: Annually how many financial audits, 

performance audits, evaluations/inspections, investigations does your organization complete? 
U.S. Department of Justice 5

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Respondents entered their data directly into the web survey. For any 

question, the survey respondent had the option of answering the question, 

indicating “No answer” (our data analyses excluded the “No answer” 

responses), or not answering the question at all. In other cases, a 

respondent was instructed to skip one or more questions depending on how 

a prior question was answered. Because of this, the actual number of 

respondents fluctuates slightly for each question. The Government 

Accountability Office converted the data into a database for analysis by the 

DOJ OIG. The detailed results of the closed-ended questions to the survey 

are contained in Appendix II. 

Data Considerations 

We did not project the survey results beyond the 128 organizations 

that responded to the survey. The results express only the opinions of the 

survey respondents. Further, the results represent the various response 

rates among the federal, state, and local organizations: federal 67 percent, 

state 34 percent, and local 29 percent. Where we combined federal, state, 

and local responses, the data represents these varying rates, which means 

that the federal response rate may be more representative than the state 

and local response rates. Also, many of the percentages presented in the 

report correspond to a small number of survey respondents. Lastly, the 

survey respondents are a variety of large, medium, and small accountability 

organizations with different workload levels for the functions they perform. 

These organizational variations can affect the meaning of the organizations’ 

responses. However, the scope of our survey did not include any analysis of 

the responses based on the size and workload of the organizations. 
U.S. Department of Justice 6

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 

PREVALENCE OF ACCESS PROBLEMS

Access to Information Problems Exist, But Overall They Are Not Large 

Problems for the Survey Respondents. 

More than one-fourth of responses overall reported no access problems. 

Figure 3 shows that the percent of responses indicating no access problems 

was almost the same for the three government groups. 

Figure 3. No Access Problems by Government Group

29% 29% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

40 of 137 responses 18 of 62 responses 56 of 183 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 11, 19, 27, and 35: What percentage of your financial audits, 

performance audits, evaluations/inspections, investigations involve access to information problems? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 11, 19, 27, 

and 35. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II
U.S. Department of Justice 7

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 4 shows the percent of responses by function indicating no 

access problems. 

Figure 4. No Access Problems by Function 

18%

31% 28%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

39 of 84 responses 21 of 114 responses 26 of 84 responses 28 of 100 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 11, 19, 27, and 35: What percentage of your financial audits, 

performance audits, evaluations/inspections, investigations involve access to information problems? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each question by government group are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 8

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Some responses indicated that access to information problems occur in 

more than 25 percent of reviews. The federal response rate for problems in 

more than 25 percent of reviews was slightly higher than the state and local 

response rates. Figure 5 shows the percent of responses by government 

group indicating access problems in more than 25 percent of reviews for all 

functions. 

Figure 5. Access Problems in More Than 25% of Reviews

 by Government Group

18%

13% 14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

24 of 137 responses 8 of 62 responses 25 of 183 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 11, 19, 27, and 35: What percentage of your financial audits, 

performance audits, evaluations/inspections, investigations involve access to information problems? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 11, 19, 27, 

and 35. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 9

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 6 shows the percent of responses by function indicating access 

problems in more than 25 percent of reviews. For all functions, only 7 

responses indicated having access problems in “All” reviews. 

Figure 6. Access Problems in More Than 25% of Reviews by Function

14% 13% 15% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

12 of 84 responses 15 of 114 responses 13 of 84 responses 17 of 100 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 11, 19, 27, and 35: What percentage of your financial audits, 

performance audits, evaluations/inspections, investigations involve access to information problems? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each question by government group are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 10

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

TRENDS IN ACCESS PROBLEMS

Respondents’ Access Problems Have Generally Remained at the Same 

Level. 

Most responses reported that the access to information trend over the 

last three years has remained about the same. About three-fourths of the 

responses indicated a stable trend in the ability to access information. 

Figure 7 shows the overall stable trend reported by respondents for each 

function. 

Figure 7. Trend in Access Problems Over a 3-Year Period

by Function

8%

19% 17%

13%

78%

74%

12%

3%

9%

13%

75%

81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations & Inspections Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

Increase The Same Decrease

62 of 77 

responses 84 of 108 

responses 56 of 76 

responses

71 of 95 

responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 14, 22, 30, and 38: Over the past 3 years, would you say 

that access to information problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained the 

same? Performance audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 11

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

State responses indicated a greater increase in access problems than 

federal and local responses. The state response rate for increased access 

problems was at least two times greater overall than the federal and local 

response rates. Figure 8 shows the percent of responses by government 

group indicating some increase in access problems. 

Figure 8. Some Increased Trend in Access Problems over 3-year Period by 

Government Group

14%

31%

9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

18 of 127 responses 18 of 58 responses 16 of 171 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 14, 22, 30, and 38: Over the past 3 years, would you say 

that access to information problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained the 

same? Performance audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 14, 22, 30, 

and 38. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 12

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

The reported increases in access problems by function are shown in 

Figure 9.

Figure 9. Some Increased Trend in Access Problems Over a 3-Year Period by 

Function 

8%

19% 17%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

6 of 77 responses 21 of 108 responses 13 of 76 responses 12 of 95 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 14, 22, 30, and 38: Over the past 3 years, would you say 

that access to information problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained the 

same? Performance audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each question by government group are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 13

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

More federal responses indicated a decreasing trend in access 

problems than state and local responses. Figure 10 shows the percent of 

responses by government group indicating some decrease in access 

problems over a 3-year period. 

Figure 10. Some Decreased Trend in Access Problems Over a 3-Year Period 

by Government Group

12%

3% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

15 of 127 responses 2 of 58 responses 14 of 171 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 14, 22, 30, and 38: Over the past 3 years, would you say 

that access to information problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained the 

same? Performance audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 14, 22, 30, 

38. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 14

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 11 shows the percent of responses by function indicating some 

decrease in access problems over a 3-year period. 

Figure 11. Some Decreased Trend in Access Problems Over a 3-Year Period

 by Function 

12% 9%

13%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

9 of 77 responses 3 of 108 responses 7 of 76 responses 12 of 95 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 14, 22, 30, and 38: Over the past 3 years, would you say 

that access to information problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained the 

same? Performance audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? Note: Figure data excludes 

the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total number of respondents to 

each question by government group are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 15

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Respondents’ Satisfaction With Accessing Information is Generally 

High. 

For the past 3-year period, almost two-thirds of responses indicated 

that organizations were “very satisfied” or “generally satisfied” with the trend 

in access to information. When comparing satisfaction rates by government 

group, there were no large differences among the federal, state, and local 

responses. Figure 12 shows the percent of responses by government group 

indicating satisfaction with the trend in access problems. 

Figure 12. Satisfaction With 3-Year Trend in Access Problems by 

Government Group

64% 62% 62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

84 of 132 responses 36 of 58 responses 112 of 180 responses

Source: Survey responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, and 39: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you 

with the trend over the past 3 years with access to information for financial audits? Performance 

audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, 

and 39. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 16

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 13 shows by function the percent of responses indicating the 

levels of satisfaction with the trend in access problems. More than 50 

percent of the responses in each function indicated satisfaction with the 

3-year trend. 

Figure 13. Levels of Satisfaction with 3-Year Trend in Access Problems by 

Function

68%

60%

65%

59%

24% 27% 26%

8%

13% 12% 15%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections 

Investigations 

Functions Performed

% of Responses

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

56 of 82 

responses 66 of 110 

responses

53 of 81 

responses 57 of 97 

responses

Source: Survey responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, and 39: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you 

with the trend over the past 3 years with access to information for financial audits? Performance 

audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 17

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

For the “current” state of access to information, more than two-thirds of 

responses indicated “very satisfied” or “generally satisfied.” Figure 14 

shows by government group the percent of responses indicating current 

satisfaction with accessing information. 

Figure 14. Current Satisfaction With Access to Information by Government 

Group

83%

92%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

114 of 138 responses 55 of 60 responses 128 of 181 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 16, 24, 32, and 40: Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied 

are you with your organization’s access to information on financial audits? Performance audits? 

Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 16, 24, 32, 

and 40. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 18

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 15 shows the percent of responses by function indicating the 

levels of current satisfaction with accessing information. At least 75 percent 

of the responses in each function indicated current satisfaction. 

Figure 15. Levels of Current Satisfaction With Access to Information 

by Function

88%

83%

75%

79%

6%

11% 13% 10%

6% 6%

12% 11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations & Inspections Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

74 of 84 

responses 95 of 115 

responses 62 of 83 

responses

76 of 97 

responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 16, 24, 32, and 40: Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied 

are you with your organization’s access to information on financial audits? Performance audits? 

Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 19

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Some Respondents Indicated Dissatisfaction With the 3-Year Trend and 

Current State of Access. 

Generally, less than 20 percent of the responses in each government 

group indicated dissatisfaction with the 3-year trend in access problems. 

Figure 16 shows the percent of responses by government group indicating 

dissatisfaction. 

Figure 16. Dissatisfaction With 3-Year Trend in Access Problems by 

Government Group

12%

17%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

16 of 132 responses 10 of 58 responses 19 of 180 responses

Source: Survey responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, and 39: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you 

with the trend over the past 3 years with access to information for financial audits? Performance 

audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, 

and 39. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 20

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 17 shows the percent of responses by function indicating 

dissatisfaction with the 3-year trend in access problems. 

Figure 17. Dissatisfaction With 3-Year Trend in Access Problems by Function

13% 12% 15%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations & Inspections Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

6 of 82 responses 14 of 110 responses 10 of 81 responses 15 of 97 responses

Source: Survey responses for Questions 15, 23, 31, and 39: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you 

with the trend over the past 3 years with access to information for financial audits? Performance 

audits? Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each question by government group are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 21

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Overall, 11 percent or less of the responses in each government group 

indicated dissatisfaction with the “current” state of access to information. 

Figure 18 shows the percent of responses by government group indicating 

current dissatisfaction. 

Figure 18. Current Dissatisfaction With Access to Information

 by Government Group

7% 8%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

9 of 138 responses 5 of 60 responses 20 of 181 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 16, 24, 32, and 40: Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied 

are you with your organization’s access to information on financial audits? Performance audits? 

Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. The number of 

responses for each government group represents the combined responses for Questions 16, 24, 32, 

and 40. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are in 

Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 22

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 19 shows by function the percent of responses indicating 

dissatisfaction with the current state of access. 

Figure 19. Current Dissatisfaction With Access to Information by Function

6%

12% 11%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspection

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

5 of 84 responses 8 of 115 responses 10 of 83 responses 11 of 97 responses

Source: Survey responses to Questions 16, 24, 32, and 40: Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied 

are you with your organization’s access to information on financial audits? Performance audits? 

Evaluations/Inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each question by government group are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 23

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

TYPES OF ACCESS PROBLEMS 

Access Delays to Records and Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of 

Specific People Are More Common Problems for Respondents, but 

Denials of Records Are Not. 

Despite the general satisfaction with access to information, many 

survey respondents faced problems with delays in obtaining information. 

Federal, state, and local respondents reported that they usually experience 

delays in obtaining access to records and to specific people. The combined 

response rate for “sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost always” for 

delays in obtaining records in all functions was 81 percent (230 of 283 

responses) and the combined response rate for unavailability/ 

uncooperativeness of specific people in all functions was 63 percent (175 of 

277 responses). 

Conversely, for denials of “most” or “specific” records, the majority of 

responses were “never” and “rarely.” The combined response rate of “never” 

and “rarely” for denials in obtaining most records in all functions was 87 

percent (237 of 274 responses) and the combined response rate for denials 

in obtaining specific records in all functions was 73 percent (201 of 275 

responses). Figure 20 shows the percent of responses indicating the 

frequency of each type of access problem encountered in all functions. 
U.S. Department of Justice 24

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 20. Types and Frequency of Access Problems Overall

4% 7%

44%

15%

30%

38%

45%

49%

1% 4% 7%

2% 1% 1%

35%

43%

22%

12%

29%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Delays in Obtaining

Records

Unavailability of Specific

People

Denials in Obtaining Most

Records

Denials in Obtaining

Specific Records

Types of Problems

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Questions 12, 20, 28, and 36: How often, if at all, are your access to 

information problems for financial audits, performance audits, evaluations/inspections, and 

investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in obtaining most 

records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. The 128 organizations that responded to this survey indicated that they perform one 

or more of the designated functions: financial audits, performance audits, evaluations and 

inspections, and investigations. The percentages in this figure are based on the combined responses 

for problems encountered in all the functions. 
U.S. Department of Justice 25

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

At least three-fourths of the survey responses reported that 

organizations experience delays in obtaining records while performing all four

functions. For all four functions, responses indicated delays in obtaining 

records “sometimes,” “often,” or “always/almost always” as follows: 

financial audits 79 percent (40 of 51 responses), performance audits 84 

percent (78 of 93 responses), evaluations and inspections 77 percent (50 of 

65 responses), and investigations 84 percent (62 of 74 responses). Figure 

21 shows the percent of responses indicating how often delays in obtaining 

records occur for each function. 

Figure 21. Delays in Obtaining Records by Function 

6%

1%

5% 4%

16% 15% 12%

37%

44% 45%

50%

14%

7% 6%

19%

28%

33%

26% 28%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations & Inspections Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Respondents

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Questions 12, 20, 28, and 36: How often, if at all, are your access to 

information problems for financial audits, performance audits, evaluations/inspections, and 

investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in obtaining most 

records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 26

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Financial Audits. There were no major differences among the 

federal, state, and local responses for delays in obtaining records 

for financial audits. The combined response rates for “sometimes,” 

“often,” and “always/almost always” are: federal 79 percent (15 of 

19 responses), state 84 percent (11 of 13 responses), and local 74 

percent (14 of 19 responses). Figure 22 shows the percent of 

responses by government group indicating how often delays in 

obtaining records occur for financial audits. 

Figure 22. Financial Audits -- Delays in Obtaining Records

 by Government Group 

5% 8% 5%

16%

8%

21%

32%

53%

32%

26%

21% 23%

8% 10%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses for Question 12: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for financial audits related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 27

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Performance Audits. There were no major differences among the 

federal, state, and local responses for delays in obtaining records 

for performance audits. The combined response rates for 

“sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost always” are: federal 87 

percent (26 of 30 responses), state 87 percent (13 of 15 responses), 

and local 81 percent (39 of 48 responses). Figure 23 shows the 

percent of responses by government group indicating how often 

delays in obtaining records occur for performance audits. 

Figure 23. Performance Audits -- Delays in Obtaining Records

 by Government Group 

2%

13% 13%

17%

44% 47% 44%

30% 33% 35%

13%

7%

0 0 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses for Question 20: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for performance audits related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 28

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Evaluations/Inspections. There were no major differences among 

the federal, state, and local responses for delays in obtaining 

records for evaluations and inspections. The combined response 

rates for “sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost always” are: 

federal 71 percent (17 of 24 responses), state 75 percent (6 of 8 

responses), and local 82 percent (27 of 33 responses). Figure 24 

shows the percent of responses by government group indicating 

how often delays in obtaining records occur for evaluations and 

inspections. 

Figure 24. Evaluations & Inspections -- Delays in Obtaining Records by

Government Group 

4% 3%

25%

15%

55%

39%

8% 6%

13%

13%

37.5% 37.5% 37%

0

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses for Question 28: How often, if at all, are your access to information problems 

for evaluations/inspections related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific 

people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 29

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Investigations. The state responses reported the most problems in 

obtaining records for investigations. The combined response rates 

for “sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost always” are: federal 

82 percent (23 of 28 responses), state 100 percent (11 of 11 

responses), and local 80 percent (28 of 35 responses). Figure 25 

shows the percent of responses by government group indicating 

how often delays in obtaining records occur for investigations. 

Figure 25. Investigations -- Delays in Obtaining Records

 by Government Group 

4% 6%

14% 14%

53%

64%

43%

4%

9% 6%

0 0

31%

25% 27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses for Question 36: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 30

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Many responses reported problems with gaining access to specific 

people while performing all four functions. For all four functions, responses 

indicated the unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people 

“sometimes,” “often,” or “always/almost always” as follows: financial audits 

63 percent (32 of 51 responses), performance audits 64 percent (59 of 92 

responses), evaluations and inspections 66 percent (42 of 64 responses), 

and investigations 60 percent (42 of 70 responses). Figure 26 shows the 

percent of responses by function indicating how often unavailability/ 

uncooperativeness of specific people occurs. 

Figure 26. Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of Specific People

 by Function 

5% 6% 9%

28%

53% 50%

55%

41%

0%

10%

28% 30% 31%

8% 12% 11%

16%

2% 2% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations & Inspections Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Questions 12, 20, 28, and 36: How often, if at all, are your access to 

information problems for financial audits, performance audits, evaluations/inspections, and 

investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in obtaining most 

records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 31

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Financial Audits. The responses indicated that the 

unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people during 

financial audits was a problem. The combined response rates for 

“sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost always” are: federal 58 

percent (11 of 19 responses), state 69 percent (9 of 13 responses), 

and local 63 percent (12 of 19 responses). Figure 27 shows the 

percent of responses by government group indicating how often 

unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people occurs for 

financial audits. 

Figure 27. Financial Audits -- Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of Specific People 

by Government Group

21%

5%

31% 32%

42%

54%

63%

11% 15%

5%

0

21%

0 0 0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Question 12: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for financial audits related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 32

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Performance Audits. Unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific 

people occurred more than half the time during performance 

audits. The local responses indicated a generally higher rate for 

this problem. The combined response rates for “sometimes,” 

“often,” and “always/almost always” are: federal 57 percent (17 of 

30 responses), state 53 percent (8 of 15 responses), and local 72 

percent (34 or 47 responses). Figure 28 shows the percent of 

responses by government group indicating how often 

unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people occurs for 

performance audits. 

Figure 28. Performance Audits -- Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of Specific 

People by Government Group

13%

2%

30%

47%

26%

47%

40%

55%

7%

13% 15%

3% 0 0 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Question 20: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for performance audits related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 33

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Evaluations/Inspections. The responses reported that the 

unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people was a problem 

“sometimes” or “often”: federal 50 percent (12 of 24 responses), 

state 75 percent (6 of 8 responses), and local 75 percent (24 of 32 

responses). None of the responses reported this problem 

“always/almost always.” Figure 29 shows the percent of responses 

by government group indicating how often unavailability/ 

uncooperativeness of specific people occurs for evaluations and 

inspections. 

Figure 29. Evaluations/Inspections -- Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of 

Specific People by Government Group

8%

3%

42%

22%

59%

8%

16%

13%

13%

75%

42%

0 0 0 0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Respondents

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Question 28: How often, if at all, are your access to information problems 

for evaluations/inspections related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific 

people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 34

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Investigations. There is a greater difference among the 

respondents performing investigations regarding problems with the 

unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people. The combined 

response rates for “sometimes,” “often,” and “always/almost 

always” are: federal 42 percent (11 of 26 responses), state 89 

percent (8 of 9 responses), and local 66 percent (23 of 35 

responses). Figure 30 shows the percent of responses by 

government group indicating how often unavailability/ 

uncooperativeness of specific people occurs for investigations. 

Figure 30. Investigations -- Unavailability/Uncooperativeness of Specific 

People by Government Group

15%

6%

11%

27%

78%

43%

15%

11%

17%

6%

0

29%

42%

0 0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Question 36: How often, if at all, are your access to information 

problems for investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in 

obtaining most records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of 

specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 35

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Denials in obtaining “most” records are not common access problems

for respondents. A preponderance of the responses reported “never” or 

“rarely” experiencing denials in obtaining most records for each function 

performed: financial audits 96 percent (49 of 51 responses), performance 

audits 82 percent (72 of 88 responses), evaluations and inspections 90 

percent (57 of 63 responses), and investigations 82 percent (59 of 72 

responses). Figure 31 shows the percent of responses by function indicating 

how often denials in obtaining most records occurs. 

Figure 31. Denials in Obtaining Most Records

 by Function

61%

46% 47%

4% 4% 1% 1%

35%

44% 41%

35%

41%

10% 13%

17%

0 0 0 0 0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed 

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Questions 12, 20, 28, and 36: How often, if at all, are your access to 

information problems for financial audits, performance audits, evaluations/inspections, and 

investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in obtaining most 

records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 36

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Denials in obtaining “specific” records are not common access problems

for respondents. More than two-thirds of the responses reported “never” or 

“rarely” experiencing denials in obtaining specific records for each function 

performed: financial audits 75 percent (39 of 52 responses), performance 

audits 72 percent (63 of 88 responses), evaluations and inspections 81 

percent (51 of 63 responses), and investigations 67 percent (48 of 72 

responses). Figure 32 shows the percent of responses by function indicating 

how often denials in obtaining specific records occurs. 

Figure 32. Denials in Obtaining Specific Records

by Function

52%

41% 43% 41%

4% 2% 5% 6%

1% 1%

26%

38%

31%

23%

26%

14%

25%

21%

0 0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always

Source: Survey responses to Questions 12, 20, 28, and 36: How often, if at all, are your access to 

information problems for financial audits, performance audits, evaluations/inspections, and 

investigations related to the following: a. delays in obtaining records, b. denials in obtaining most 

records, c. denials of specific records, or d. unavailability/uncooperativeness of specific people? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 37

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

FACTORS INHIBITING ACCESS TO INFORMATION 

Most Respondents Did Not Consider Any Specific Factor as Playing a 

“Major or Very Major” Role in Inhibiting Access to Information. 

The survey respondents identified the extent that certain factors play 

in inhibiting access to information by selecting multiple choice responses 

and by providing narrative comments. 

Multiple Choice (Closed-ended) Responses. Table 2 presents the 

percentage of respondents who indicated the extent that each factor played 

in their accountability organizations’ access to information problems (major 

or very major role, some role or minor role, or no role). The inhibiting 

factors are listed from high to low based on the ratings given by respondents 

for the answer choices “major role” or “very major role.” 

Of the 12 factors presented to the respondents in the survey, only 

one, “d. management was slow to respond,” was rated much higher 

(25 percent) than the others as a “major or very major” concern. Of the 

factors that played “some role or a minor role,” respondents selected four 

factors more often: “e. privacy/confidentiality” (64 percent), “b. insufficient 

personnel” (63 percent), “c. too much work” (61 percent), and 

“d. management slow to respond” (60 percent). A considerable percentage of 

responses indicated that the following factors played “no role” in access to 

information problems: “k. improperly formatted requests” (77 percent), 

“a. insufficient funds” (75 percent), and “j. ambiguous request” (64 percent). 
U.S. Department of Justice 38

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Table 2. Factors Inhibiting Access to Information 

 (as a Percent of Respondents) 

Inhibiting Factors 

(Factors are lettered as they appear 

in the survey)

Major Role or 

Very Major 

Role % 

Some Role 

or Minor 

Role % 

No Role 

% 

d. The other organization’s management took 

too long to respond to requests for 

information. 

25% 

(31 of 125 

responses)

60% 

(75 of 125 

responses)

15% 

e. The other organization had 

privacy/confidentiality concerns. 15% 

64% 

(80 of 125 

responses)

21% 

b. The other organizations said that it had 

insufficient personnel to satisfy your requests 

Insufficient Personnel. 

11% 

63% 

(78 of 123 

responses)

26% 

c. The other organization said it already had 

too much work to satisfy your request. 11% 

61% 

(75 of 123 

responses)

28% 

h. The other organization questioned the legal 

authority for the request. 10% 54% 36% 

l. The other organization was concerned about 

the public issuance of the information in the 

final report. 

11% 58% 31% 

i. The other organization had limited 

experience with your organization. 9% 55% 36% 

f. The other organization had concerns about 

security and safekeeping. 6% 54% 40% 

g. The other organization did not understand 

the importance of the request. 3% 59% 38% 

a. The other organizations said that it had 

insufficient funds to satisfy your requests. 1% 24% 

75% 

(92 of 123 

responses)

j. The other organization indicated that the 

request for information was ambiguous. 1% 35% 

64% 

(79 of 123 

responses)

k. The other organization indicated that the 

request for information was not in the 

appropriate format. 

0% 23% 

77% 

(93 of 121 

responses)

Source: Survey responses to Question 41: Considering the financial audits, performance 

audits, evaluations/inspections, and investigations that your organization conducts, how 

much of a role did the following factors play in inhibiting your organization’s ability to access 

information? 

Note: Table data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. The total number of responses to Question 41 ranged between 121 and 125 for each 

of the 12 factors. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government 

group are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 39

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Narrative (Open-ended) Comments. In their written comments, some 

respondents provided additional inhibiting factors that they encountered 

when requesting information. These factors and issues included:

• The other organization indicated that it did not have 

time to respond to the information request. 

• The other organization said the request for information 

was outside the scope of the review. 

• The other organization said providing the information 

would result in being “blamed” for negative findings. 

• The other organization could not provide the requested 

information because of incompatible data systems. 

 Some respondents also provided comments about unique access 

issues that they have encountered because of the subject matter of their 

accountability reviews. The unique issues included: 

• Lack of interagency cooperation when the review subject 

and data requirements cross Department lines covered 

by different accountability organizations. 

• Grantees making broad claims of attorney-client 

privilege to delay or deny access to records. 

• Difficulty obtaining information from third parties that 

do not have a direct contractual relationship with the 

government. 

• The variety and sometimes confusing legal restrictions 

on accessing information such as the “Privacy Act, 

Freedom of Information Act, Grand Jury, Qui Tam, and 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.” 

Unlike the factors in Table 2, in their comments, respondents did not 

indicate how major or minor of a role these factors and unique issues played 

in inhibiting their organizations ability to access information. 
U.S. Department of Justice 40

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Legal Authority as a Helpful or Hindering Factor in Access Problems. 

The survey also asked respondents about their satisfaction with their legal 

authority, how often other access problems had their source in legal 

authority, and whether their 

legal authority included certain 

enforcement powers. Almost all 

of the responses (118 of 126 or 

94 percent) were either “very 

satisfied” or “generally satisfied” 

with legal authority. Only 4 

responses (3 percent) registered 

dissatisfaction and 4 responses 

(3 percent) expressed no 

tendency in either direction. 

The 40 federal responses were 

almost evenly split between 

“very satisfied” or “generally 

satisfied” with no responses 

indicating dissatisfaction. All 

but 1 of the 22 state responses 

(95 percent) registered 

satisfaction. For the 64 local government responses, 58 indicated either 

“very satisfied” or “generally satisfied” (91 percent), 3 registered 

dissatisfaction (5 percent), and 3 (5 percent) expressed no choice in either 

direction. Figure 33 shows the percent of responses indicating the levels of 

satisfaction with legal authority. 

Characteristics of Legal Authority 

Source: All of the federal and most of the state 

accountability organizations perform their 

review functions based on legal authority 

derived from legislation. About two-thirds of 

the local organizations obtain their legal 

authority from legislation. The remainder of the 

authority comes from regulation, executive 

order or directive, county or city charters, state 

constitutions, or other government authority. 

Subpoenas: Slightly more than half of the 

respondents have the legal authority to 

subpoena records. A substantial majority of the 

federal and state organizations, 92 percent and 

68 percent, respectively, have this authority 

compared to only 21 percent for the local 

entities. 
U.S. Department of Justice 41

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 33. Levels of Satisfaction with Legal Authority by Government Group

48%

77%

50%

18%

53%

0

5%

0

5% 5%

000

38%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Very Satisfied Generally Satisfied Neither Generally Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Source: Survey responses to Question 4: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your 

organization’s legal authority to access information? Note: Figure data excludes the “no 

answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 100 percent. Details on the total 

number of respondents to each answer choice by government group are in Appendix II. 

Although satisfaction was high with legal authority, in over half of the 

responses, access to information problems arose from questions regarding 

legal authority. The state responses showed a greater degree of access 

problems from legal authority concerns “most of the time” (33 percent, 7 of 

21 responses) compared to the federal responses (10 percent, 4 of 40 

responses), and the local responses (10 percent, 6 of 60 responses) for this 

answer choice. Overall, at least one-third of the responses in each 

government group (federal 18 of 40 responses, state 7 of 21 responses, and 

local 26 of 60 responses) indicated that legal authority was “never or almost 

never” a problem. Figure 34 shows the percent of responses by government 

group indicating the frequency of access problems from legal authority. 
U.S. Department of Justice 42

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Figure 34. Legal Authority as Source of Access Problems by Government 

Group

10%

5% 8%

33%

10% 10%

5% 3%

25% 24%

35%

45%

33%

10%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

Always/Almost Always Most of the Time About 1/2 of the Time Some of the Time Never or Almost Never

Source: Survey responses to Question 5: In your opinion, when you have access to information 

problems, how often (if at all) are those problems attributable to disagreements over your 

organization’s legal right to access the information requested? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 

 To alleviate the potential access to information problems arising from 

questions regarding legal authority, some survey respondents indicated in 

their narrative comments that the following additional legal authorities 

would be helpful: 

• Clarification of accountability organizations’ right of access, 

• Clear mandate for auditees to cooperate, 

• Full law enforcement authority, 

• Ability to subpoena tangible items such as electronic hardware, 

• Standard access rules in all programs, 

• Ability to conduct data mining more easily to detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse, 
U.S. Department of Justice 43

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• State law for accessing financial accounting records, and 

• Access to any financial activity that occurs within the county. 
U.S. Department of Justice 44

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

STRATEGIES USED TO ACCESS INFORMATION 

Respondents Report That They Resolve Most Access to Information 

Problems Through a Variety of Strategies. Addressing Problems Early, 

Encouraging Cooperation, Communicating Frequently, and Protecting 

Sensitive Information Were Among the Most Successful Strategies 

Cited. 

Satisfactory resolution of access problems occurs most of the time for 

respondents. With few exceptions, respondents reported successful 

resolution of access problems in 51 percent or more of their reviews (“51% 

to All” answer choices). The combined response rates for satisfactory 

resolution in “51% to All” reviews are: financial audits 96 percent (50 of 52 

responses), performance audits 99 percent (92 of 93 responses), evaluations 

and inspections 95 percent (60 of 63 responses), and investigations 94 

percent (71 of 76 responses). At least one-fourth of the responses (107 of 

284) indicated that problems were resolved in “All” reviews performed in 

each function. Figure 35 shows the percent of responses indicating 

satisfactorily resolved access problems for each function.

Figure 35. Problems Satisfactorily Resolved

 by Function

4% 0 00 0 0 0 000 0 1% 2% 1% 0

48% 52% 53% 50%

0

1% 2%

8% 2% 5% 4%

12%

13%

38% 38%

29%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Financial Audits Performance Audits Evaluations &

Inspections

Investigations

Functions Performed

% of Responses

None 1%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% All

Source: Survey responses to Questions 13, 21, 29, and 37: What percentage of your financial audits 

that have access to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and timely)? 

Performance audits? Evaluations and inspections? Investigations? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each question by government group are 

in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 45

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Financial Audits. Respondents stated that they usually resolved 

access problems in 51 percent or more of their financial audits. 

The combined response rates for the three answer choices 

encompassing “51% to All” are: federal 90 percent (18 of 20 

responses), state 100 percent (13 of 13 responses), and local 100 

percent (19 of 19 responses). However, 10 percent of the federal 

responses (2 of 20) indicated that access to information problems 

could not be resolved. Figure 36 shows the percent of responses 

by government group indicating how often access problems are 

resolved for financial audits. 

Figure 36. Financial Audits -- Problems Satisfactorily Resolved

by Government Group

10%

000 000 000 000 0 0

5%

54%

50%

58%

8%

10%

37%

30%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

None 1%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% All

Source: Survey responses to Question 13: What percentage of your financial audits that have access 

to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and timely)? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 100 percent. Details on the total number of 

respondents to each answer choice by government group are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 46

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Performance Audits. Respondents stated that they usually 

resolved access problems in 51 percent or more of their 

performance audits. The combined response rates for the three 

answer choices encompassing “51% to All” are: federal 100 

percent (30 of 30 responses), state 100 percent (15 of 15 

responses), and local 98 percent (47 of 48 responses). Figure 37 

shows the percent of responses by government group indicating 

how often access problems are resolved for performance audits. 

Figure 37. Performance Audits -- Problems Satisfactorily Resolved

 by Government Group

000 0 0 000 000 000

50%

60%

2%

15%

10% 13%

54%

27% 29%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

None 1%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% All

Source: Survey responses to Question 21: What percentage of your performance audits that have 

access to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and timely)? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 47

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Evaluations/Inspections. Respondents stated that they usually 

resolved access problems in 51 percent or more of their evaluations 

and inspections. The combined response rates for the three 

answer choices encompassing “51% to All” are: federal 91 percent 

(21 of 23 responses), state 100 percent (7 of 7 responses), and local 

97 percent (32 of 33 responses). Figure 38 shows the percent of 

responses by government group indicating how often access 

problems are resolved for evaluations and inspections. 

Figure 38. Evaluations/Inspections -- Problems Satisfactorily Resolved

 by Government Group

000 0 0

4% 3% 0 04%

000 0 0 0 0

9%

39%

43%

64%

52%

57%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

None 1%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% All

Source: Survey responses to Question 29: What percentage of your evaluations/inspections that 

have access to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and timely)? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II.
U.S. Department of Justice 48

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

• Investigations. Respondents stated that they usually resolved 

access problems in 51 percent or more of their investigations. The 

combined response rates for the three answer choices 

encompassing “51% to All” are: federal 93 percent (26 of 28 

responses), state 100 percent (11 of 11 responses), and local 

92 percent (34 of 37 responses). Figure 39 shows the percent of 

responses by government group indicating how often access 

problems are resolved for investigations. 

Figure 39. Investigations -- Problems Satisfactorily Resolved

by Government Group

0 0 3% 0 0 3% 000 000

7%

0 4% 3% 0

22%

61% 64%

43%

36%

28% 27%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal State Local

Government Group

% of Responses

None 1%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% All

Source: Survey responses to Question 37: What percentage of your investigations that have access 

to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and timely)? 

Note: Figure data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 

100 percent. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II.

Several strategies are useful in resolving access problems. We asked 

respondents to identify the strategies that helped them gain access to 

information through multiple choice (closed-ended) responses and narrative 

(open-ended) comments. 

• Multiple Choice (Closed-ended) Responses. Each of the multiple 

choice responses refers to a potential strategy or action that may 

have been used by the respondents to promote access to 

information and avoid problems. Table 3 presents the percent of 
U.S. Department of Justice 49

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

responses indicating the extent that each strategy played in the 

respondent organization’s resolution of access to information 

problems (very useful/moderately useful, somewhat/a little useful, 

not useful, and never tried). The strategies are listed from high to 

low based on the ratings given by respondents for the answer 

choices “very useful” or “moderately useful.” 

Table 3. Ratings of Strategies for Resolving Access Problems 

(as % of Responses) 

Strategies 

(Strategies are lettered as they appear 

in the survey) 

Very Useful 

or 

Moderately 

Useful % 

Somewhat 

or a Little 

Useful % 

Not 

Useful 

% 

Not 

Tried 

%

e. Addressing issues early in the process to avoid 

access issues before they occur. 

67% 

(82 of 122 

responses)

26% 2% 5% 

a. Encouraging the other organization’s management 

to support providing access to information. 

58% 

(70 of 121 

responses)

34% 2% 6% 

h. Communicating frequently with other 

organizations to explain your missions, authority, 

and information requirements. 

57% 

(70 of 122 

responses)

35% 0% 8% 

g. Having policies and procedures to address the 

privacy/confidentiality concerns of other 

organization’s information. 

52% 

(61 of 118 

responses)

36% 2% 10% 

i. Sanitizing your reports to protect sensitive 

information. 

52% 

(61 of 118 

responses)

32% 3% 14% 

f. Having policies and procedures to address 

concerns about security and safekeeping of other 

organization’s information. 

51% 

(60 of 118 

responses) 

33% 2% 14% 

d. Revising policies and procedures regarding access 

to information to improve efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

26% 36% 3% 35% 

c. Receiving technical and procedural training to 

help with access to information concerns. 21% 43% 4% 32% 

b. Receiving interpersonal training to help with 

access to information concerns. 9% 38% 5% 48% 

Source: Survey responses to Question 42: Considering the financial audits, performance audits, 

evaluations/inspections, and investigations that your organization conducts, how useful have the 

following strategies been in helping your organization to access information? 

Note: Table data excludes the “no answer” responses. Numbers are rounded and may not add to 100 

percent. The total number of responses to Question 42 ranged between 117 and 122 for each of the 9 

strategies. Details on the total number of respondents to each answer choice by government group 

are in Appendix II. 
U.S. Department of Justice 50

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Of the nine strategies for addressing access problems presented to 

the respondents, “e. addressing issues early in the process” was 

rated higher than the other eight, with 67 percent of the responses 

reporting that this strategy was “very useful or moderately useful.” 

Communication efforts such as “a. encouraging management to 

support access” and “h. communicating frequently with other 

organizations” also were reported to be “very useful or moderately 

useful,” with ratings of 58 percent and 57 percent, respectively. 

Over 50 percent of the responses also rated “g. policy and 

procedures for privacy and confidentiality,” “i. sanitizing reports to 

protect sensitive information”, and “f. policy and procedures for 

security and safekeeping” as “very useful or moderately useful” in 

addressing access problems. These three strategies are of 

particular interest because responses rated “the other organization 

had privacy/confidentiality concerns” as the second most serious 

factor playing a major role or very major role in access problems 

(see Table 2). 

• Open-Ended Questions. Our open-ended questions encouraged 

respondents to explain in their own words the strategies that they 

used to promote access to information and avoid problems, and to 

describe the degree to which they obtained satisfactory results by 

using these strategies. The majority of the strategies submitted by 

survey respondents for addressing access issues are common sense 

approaches that are used routinely in conducting accountability 

work. These common approaches are: 

o Meeting with managers from the organization undergoing 

review to discuss the review objectives and data requirements, 

reinforce legislative or regulatory authority to access the data, 

and explain polices and procedures for conducting reviews. 

o Issuing written communication such as project initiation 

letters that explain review objectives and data requirements 

and state managers’ responsibilities to comply with data 

requests. 

Respondents stated that the meetings and written 

communications resulted in successful outcomes most of the 

time. 
U.S. Department of Justice 51

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

For this report, we selected those strategies that described actions 

that appeared somewhat beyond the routine approaches to access 

problems and that could potentially have widespread 

applicability. 

Each strategy is described in more detail on the following pages 

and is presented in five parts: the problem or issue, the strategy 

implemented, the outcome achieved, the resources required for 

implementation, and obstacles or concerns that were 

encountered. 

Selected Strategies 

• Providing examples of acceptable documentation. 

• Having persons knowledgeable of information technology work 

with the organization undergoing review to facilitate extracting 

automated data. 

• Developing joint guidelines with organizations undergoing 

review to protect information from third party access. 

• Emphasizing that the improvements made by the organization 

undergoing review will be included in the report. 

• Assuring the organization that sensitive information will be 

protected in workpapers. 

• Using a court order to obtain records. 

• Revising business cards to include the citation for the 

accountability organization’s legal authority. 

• Requiring department heads involved in a project to attend the 

entrance conference. 

• Ensuring that the organization will have the opportunity to 

review the draft report for sensitive information that should not 

be released to the public. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

52

FEDERAL RESPONDENTS PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF 

 THREE USEFUL STRATEGIES 

 Federal Example 2 

o Issue or Problem. The auditors were 

having difficulty obtaining access to 

computerized records. 

o Strategy Implemented. The auditors 

used an information technology staff 

member to meet personally with the 

auditee at the entrance conference to 

discuss record layouts. 

o Outcome Achieved. The auditee 

received sufficient information to be 

able to provide the auditors with the 

needed information. 

o Resources. The auditors estimated 

that during the course of the year, 

they would require an additional 50 

information technology staff days. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. The auditors 

experienced no obstacles to this 

approach. 

 

 Federal Example 1 

o Issue or Problem. The respondent’s 

organization encountered problems 

obtaining adequate supporting 

documentation for a substantial 

number of adjustments made to 

financial statements. 

o Strategy Implemented. The auditors 

provided examples of the types of 

documents that would be needed for 

selected adjustments. 

o Outcome Achieved. This approach 

provided adequate information early 

in the audit process to the 

appropriate officials who were then 

able to maintain and provide the 

documentation that was needed for 

the audit. 

o Resources. Three auditors took two 

weeks to gather the documentation 

required and meet with the auditee’s 

managers and accountants. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. They 

experienced no obstacles to this 

approach. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

53

FEDERAL RESPONDENTS PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF 

THREE USEFUL STRATEGIES 

 Federal Example 3 

o Issue or Problem. Inspectors were denied access 

to “interviews and materials in litigation files 

needed for [the] ongoing inspection.” 

o Strategy Implemented. The inspector 

coordinated with agency counsel to “draft a 

memorandum of agreement (MOA) clarifying 

protection of material from third party access.” 

o Outcome Achieved. Access to the required 

information was achieved. 

o Resources. “Significant time from a senior 

attorney over many months to achieve the MOA 

and desired result.” 

o Obstacles/Concerns. This problem was the 

result of a “lack of understanding or authority of 

[the] IG [Inspector General] to access information 

under the law and absence of clear precedent.” 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

54

STATE RESPONDENTS PROVIDED AN EXAMPLE OF 

ONE USEFUL STRATEGY 

 State Example 

o Issue or Problem. The respondent described difficulty in getting officials in the audited 

organization to acknowledge deficiencies identified by the auditors during the audit field work 

and provide related information. The officials expressed concern that if they released more 

information, it would result in additional “blame.” 

o Strategy Implemented. The auditors hand deliver engagement letters to personally emphasize 

the message in the letters that they will include in audit reports verifiable improvements that 

auditees make during the field work in response to negative findings. The auditors include 

the following paragraph in their engagement letters: 

Our overall goal in conducting any performance audit is to improve public 

accountability, which is fundamental for all of us who serve the public 

interest. We can assure you that, while maintaining our independence, we 

will seek to achieve our goal through cooperation with you and your staff. If 

our audit work results in positive findings, we will report them, just as we 

report findings that are less than positive. Regarding the latter, our 

performance auditors will use a “constructive engagement” audit approach 

whereby we work with you during the audit to facilitate improvements on a 

real-time basis. Subsequently, when we write our report, we will include 

verifiable improvements that you made during our field work, as 

appropriate. A final report will be made available to the public only when 

you have had an opportunity to review it and provide your comments. 

 

o Outcome Achieved. This approach was recently implemented but initially appears to be 

effective. 

o Resources. Use and allocation of resources were unaffected. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. Historically, audit teams had waited until the report was written to 

reveal their findings to the auditee. When faced with the “constructive engagement” 

approach, the auditors were initially reticent to reveal negative findings earlier in the 

process fearing that the findings might be “erased” during the field work stage. However, 

the auditors have agreed to implement this new approach and see the results. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

55

LOCAL RESPONDENTS PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF 

FIVE USEFUL STRATEGIES 

 Local Example 2 

o Issue or Problem. The auditors had 

difficulty obtaining “records that 

were protected under state law from 

disclosure.” 

o Strategy Implemented. The auditors 

met with the auditees and with the 

city attorney to discuss their 

requirements. 

o Outcome Achieved. To obtain access 

to the records, the city attorney 

obtained a court order, which was 

effective during the audit period, on 

behalf of the auditors. 

o Resources. One audit manager met 

with the necessary officials to resolve 

this problem. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. None 

indicated. 

 Local Example 1 

o Issue or Problem. The officials being 

reviewed were reluctant to provide 

the names of undercover police 

officers who had been photographed 

obtaining fuel from county pumps. 

They did not want the officers’ 

names included in the work papers 

because of the officers’ undercover 

assignments. 

o Strategy Implemented. The 

reviewers reinforced that this 

information is protected by law and 

the protection applies to both the 

reviewer and the reviewee. A 

compromise was reached by 

identifying the officers from 

photographs on their official badges 

and designating them with a number 

rather than their names in the work 

papers. 

o Outcome Achieved. A successful 

outcome was achieved when the 

reviewers were able to complete their 

work without using the undercover 

officers’ names in the work papers. 

o Resources. This process required an 

extra 10-15 hours of fieldwork. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. None 

indicated. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

56

LOCAL RESPONDENTS PROVIDED EXAMPLES 

OF FIVE USEFUL STRATEGIES 

 Local Example 4 

o Issue or Problem. The auditor stated 

that “other organizations’ knowledge” 

of audit activities, including “its 

objectives” and “OIG expectations,” 

needed to be “broadened.” 

o Strategy Implemented. The auditors 

ensure that each audit announcement 

letter includes a clear explanation of 

the project’s objectives and the 

requirement that “all department 

heads that are involved in the audit 

attend the opening conference.” 

o Outcome Achieved. The outcome of 

these changes is yet to be determined. 

o Resources. No additional staffing or 

resources were required. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. The respondent 

has concerns that the 

“notification/announcement” of the 

conferences may not get to the 

“appropriate agency officials.” 

 Local Example 3 

o Issue or Problem. In auditing 

“enterprise entities,” (utilities), the 

City Auditor encountered resistance 

from these entities, which 

questioned the city auditor’s 

authority to obtain the requested 

information. 

o Strategy Implemented. The City 

Auditor upgraded the business cards 

of his staff to “include the logos of all 

entities that we audit.” He also 

included a statement on the back of 

the business cards “noting the 

authority from City Code and 

directing questions to either the City 

Auditor or Mayor.” 

o Outcome Achieved. The enterprise 

entities have reduced their 

questioning of authority and the 

auditors have obtained the 

information they require to perform 

their audits. 

o Resources. Time and cost of new 

business cards was less than $500 

for 11 professional employees. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. 

Although there were initial 

concerns that the new 

business cards might be 

seen as “pushy” or 

“bullying,” no major 

obstacles were encountered. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

57

LOCAL RESPONDENTS PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF 

 FIVE USEFUL STRATEGIES 

 Local Example 5 

o Issue or Problem. Some city staff members, 

especially those in the Human Resources, Law 

Enforcement, and Finance Departments, are 

reluctant to release information that is 

confidential. 

o Strategy Implemented. The analyst dealt with 

this reluctance in three ways: 1) providing 

reviewees with a copy of the pertinent sections of 

the City Code that require confidentiality on the 

part of the analyst; 2) assuring the staff verbally 

that confidentiality is a serious issue and no 

confidential information will be released; and 3) 

providing draft reports to the reviewee before 

they are released to the public to insure that no 

confidential information is included. 

o Outcome Achieved. “So far, this [strategy] has 

always resulted in the successful resolution of 

disagreements over whether I should have 

access to certain records.” 

o Resources. The additional efforts require more 

time but no other expenses. 

o Obstacles/Concerns. None indicated.
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

58

CONCLUSIONS 

 Through a nationwide survey, 128 accountability organizations told 

us that the access problems they experience while conducting financial 

audits, performance audits, evaluations, inspections, and investigations are 

usually resolved successfully. Overall, these survey respondents are 

satisfied with the relatively stable 3-year trend and current state of access to 

information. 

Initial resistance to providing records and unavailability or 

uncooperativeness of specific people are the most common problems that 

delay the progress of accountability reviews for survey respondents, but 

outright denials of access to records and people are rare. The sources of 

most access problems for survey respondents are the slow response by 

managers to requests for information from the accountability organization, 

insufficient personnel to gather and provide the information, too much other 

work to respond to the accountability organization, and privacy or 

confidentiality concerns about the information requested. 

To gain access to information and establish productive working 

relationships, survey respondents use a variety of strategies. Some useful 

strategies mentioned frequently by survey respondents include addressing 

issues early in the process, encouraging managers to support access to 

information, communicating frequently with organizations under review, 

and ensuring the protection of sensitive information. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

59

APPENDIX I: MEMBERS OF THE DOMESTIC WORKING 

GROUP 

Federal Inspectors General 

1. Glenn A. Fine 

Department of Justice 

2. Gregory H. Friedman 

Department of Energy 

3. J. Russell George 

Department of Treasury for 

Tax Administration 

4. John P. Higgins 

Department of Education 

5. Richard Skinner 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

State Auditors 

1. Ernest Almonte 

Rhode Island 

2. Lynn Canton 

New York 

3. Debra K. Davenport 

Arizona 

4. Manuel Diaz Saldana 

Puerto Rico 

5. Richard Fair 

New Jersey 

6. William Holland 

Illinois 

7. Elaine M. Howle 

California 

Local Auditors 

1. Gary Blackmer 

Portland, Oregon 

2. Beryl Davis 

Orlando, Florida 

3. Mark Funkhouser 

Kansas City, Missouri 

4. Jerome J. Heer 

County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

5. Albert Scaperotto 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

6. Leslie Ward 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Chairperson 

David M. Walker 

Comptroller General of the United States 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

60

APPENDIX II: RESULTS OF CLOSED-ENDED QUESTIONS

This Appendix includes the survey data used in the figures for the 

report. Some respondents chose the “no answer” response choice for 

certain questions, and these “no answer” responses were not included in the 

analyses of data. Percentage amounts have been rounded and may not add 

to 100 percent. 

Background Information 

Q1 Which of the following categories best describes your organization? 

(Select one.) 

 

Q2 Annually, what percentage of your organization’s work falls into the 

following functions? (Give your best estimate.) 

a. Financial Audits: Financial audits are primarily concerned with 

providing reasonable assurance about whether financial 

statements are presented fairly in all material respects in 

conformance with auditing and accounting principles. 

Government Groups Total Number 

of Respondents

Percentage of 

Total Respondents 

Federal 40 31% 

State 22 17% 

Local 66 52% 

Totals 128 100% 

Government Groups Average Who Perform 

 Financial Audits 

Federal 14.5 

State 37.0 

Local 12.3 

All 17.3 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

61

b. Performance Audits: Performance audits entail an objective and 

systematic examination of evidence using the Government Auditing 

Standards (also called the Yellow Book) to provide an independent 

assessment of the performance and management of a program 

against objective criteria. Performance audits encompass a wide 

variety of objectives, including objectives related to assessing 

program effectiveness and results; economy and efficiency; internal 

control; compliance with legal or other requirements; and 

objectives related to providing prospective analyses, guidance, or 

summary information. 

c. Evaluations/Inspections: In-depth assessment of a major 

program, function, or activity (evaluation) or concise assessment of 

a specific office, event, issue, or problem (inspection). 

Evaluations/Inspections do not use Government Auditing 

Standards (also call the Yellow Book). 

Government Groups Average Who Perform 

 Performance Audits 

Federal 40.0 

State 40.8 

Local 53.7 

All 47.2 

Government Groups Average Who Perform 

 Evaluations/Inspections 

Federal 11.9 

State 11.5 

Local 14.9 

All 13.4 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

62

d. Investigations: Investigating allegations of violations of laws, 

regulations, and administrative procedures. 

e. Other: If other, please describe. 

Government Groups Average Who Perform 

Investigations 

Federal 27.1 

State 4.8 

Local 9.0 

All 13.9 

Government Groups Average Who Perform 

 Other Functions 

Federal 6.5 

State 5.9 

Local 10.2 

Totals 8.3 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

63

Legal Authority 

Q3 What is the primary source of your organization’s legal authority to 

access information? (Select one.) If other, please describe. 

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q4 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your organization’s legal 

authority to access information? (Select one.) 

Level of Satisfaction 

with Current Legal 

Authority 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 19 48% 17 77% 24 38% 60 48% 

Generally satisfied 20 50% 4 18% 34 53% 58 46% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 1 3% 0 0% 3 5% 4 3% 

Generally dissatisfied 0 0% 1 5% 3 5% 4 3% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 40 101% 22 100% 64 101% 126 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Sources of Legal 

Authority 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Total Total 

% 

Legislation 40 100% 20 91% 40 63% 100 79% 

Regulation 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 2 2% 

Executive Order or 

Directive 0 0% 0 0% 11 17% 11 9% 

Other 0 0% 2 9% 11 17% 13 10% 

Totals 40 100% 22 100% 64 100% 126 100% 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

64

Q5 In your opinion, when you have access to information problems, how 

often (if at all) are those problems attributable to disagreements over 

your organization’s legal right to access the information requested? 

(Select one.) 

Frequency Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Always or almost 

always 4 10% 1 5% 5 8% 10 8% 

Most of the time 4 10% 7 33% 6 10% 17 14% 

About 1⁄2 of the time 4 10% 1 5% 2 3% 7 6% 

Some of the time 10 25% 5 24% 21 35% 36 30% 

Never or almost 

never 

18 45% 7 33% 26 43% 51 42% 

Totals 40 100% 21 100% 60 99% 121 100%

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q6 Does you organization have the legal authority to perform the 

following? 

a. Subpoena records 

Level of Subpoena 

Authority 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Yes 36 92% 15 71% 14 23% 65 53% 

No 3 8% 6 29% 48 77% 57 47% 

Totals 39 100% 21 100% 62 100% 122 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

65

b. Compel testimony under oath 

Level of Authority 

to Compel 

Testimony 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Yes 11 28% 8 42% 10 16% 29 24% 

No 28 72% 11 58% 51 84% 90 76% 

Totals 39 100% 19 100% 61 100% 119 100%

Nine respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

66

Financial Audits 

Q9 Does your organization conduct financial audits? (Financial audits 

are primarily concerned with providing reasonable assurance about 

whether financial statements are presented fairly in all material 

respects in conformance with auditing and accounting principles.) 

(Select one.) 

 

Organization 

Conducts 

Financial Audits 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Yes 35 88% 19 86% 29 44% 83 65% 

No 5 13% 3 14% 37 56% 45 35% 

Total 40 101% 22 100% 66 100% 128 100%

Q10 Annually, how many financial audits does your organization 

complete? (Give your best estimate.) 

Government Groups Average of Responses Number of Respondents 

Federal 27.7 36 

State 55.3 19 

Local 6.0 31 

All 26.0 86 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

67

Q11 What percentage of your financial audits involve access to 

information problems? (Give your best estimate.) (Select one.) 

% of Financial Audits 

with Access Problems 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 17 50% 8 42% 14 45% 39 46% 

1%-5% 4 12% 7 37% 8 26% 19 23% 

6%-10% 1 3% 1 5% 5 16% 7 8% 

11%-25% 2 6% 2 11% 3 10% 7 8% 

26%-50% 6 18% 1 5% 0 0% 7 8% 

51%-75% 2 6% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 

76%-99% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

All 2 6% 0 0% 1 3% 3 4% 

Totals 34 101% 19 100% 31 100% 84 99% 

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q12 How often, if at all, are your access to information problems for 

financial audits related to the following? 

a. Delays in obtaining records 

Delays in 

Obtaining Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 1 5% 1 8% 1 5% 3 6% 

Rarely 3 16% 1 8% 4 21% 8 16% 

Sometimes 6 32% 7 54% 6 32% 19 37% 

Often 5 26% 3 23% 6 32% 14 28% 

Always/ 

almost always 4 21% 1 8% 2 11% 7 14% 

Totals 19 100% 13 101% 19 101% 51 101% 

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

68

b. Denials in obtaining most, if not all, records 

Denials in Obtaining 

Most Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 14 70% 6 46% 11 61% 31 61% 

Rarely 4 20% 7 54% 7 39% 18 35% 

Sometimes 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% 2 4% 

Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Always/almost always 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 20 100% 13 100% 18 100% 51 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

c. Denials of specific records 

Denials in Obtaining 

Specific Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 10 50% 7 54% 10 52% 27 52% 

Rarely 4 20% 2 15% 6 32% 12 23% 

Sometimes 6 30% 2 15% 3 16% 11 21% 

Often 0 0% 2 15% 0 0% 2 4% 

Always/almost always 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 20 100% 13 99% 19 100% 52 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

69

d. Specific people (unavailable or uncooperative) 

Unavailability/ 

Uncooperativeness 

of Specific People 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 4 21% 0 0% 1 5% 5 10% 

Rarely 4 21% 4 31% 6 32% 14 28% 

Sometimes 8 42% 7 54% 12 63% 27 53% 

Often 2 11% 2 15% 0 0% 4 8% 

Always/almost 

always 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 

Totals 19 100% 13 100% 19 100% 51 101% 

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q13 What percentage of your financial audits that have access to 

information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and 

timely)? (Give your best estimate.) (Select one.) 

% of Financial 

Audits with 

Satisfactory 

Resolution 

Federal Federal 

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

None 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% 2 4% 

1%-5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

6%-10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

11%-25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

26%-50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

51%-75% 2 10% 1 8% 1 5% 4 8% 

76%-99% 6 30% 7 54% 7 37% 20 38% 

All 10 50% 5 38% 11 58% 26 50% 

Totals 20 100% 13 100% 19 100% 52 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

70

Q14 Over the past 3 years, would you say that access to information 

problems on financial audits has increased, decreased, or remained 

the same? (Select one.) 

Access to Information 

Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Greatly increased 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Generally increased 2 7% 3 18% 1 3% 6 8% 

About the same 24 77% 13 77% 25 86% 62 81% 

Generally decreased 3 10% 1 6% 2 7% 6 8% 

Greatly decreased 2 7% 0 0% 1 3% 3 4% 

Totals 31 101% 17 101% 29 99% 77 101%

Nine respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q15 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the trend over the past 3 

years with access to information for financial audits? (Select one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 7 21% 7 39% 8 26% 22 27% 

Generally satisfied 17 52% 2 11% 15 48% 34 41% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 6 18% 7 39% 7 23% 20 24% 

Generally dissatisfied 1 3% 2 11% 0 0% 3 4% 

Very dissatisfied 2 6% 0 0% 1 3% 3 4% 

Totals 33 100% 18 100% 31 100% 82 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

71

Q16 Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your 

organization’s access to information on financial audits? (Select 

one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Access 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 11 32% 7 37% 10 32% 28 33% 

Generally satisfied 17 50% 12 63% 17 55% 46 55% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 3 9% 0 0% 2 7% 5 6% 

Generally dissatisfied 3 9% 0 0% 2 7% 5 6% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 34 100% 19 100% 31 101% 84 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

72

Performance Audits 

Q17 Does your organization conduct performance audits? (Performance 

audits entail an objective and systematic examination of evidence 

using the Government Auditing Standards (also called the Yellow 

Book) to provide an independent assessment of the performance and 

management of a program against objective criteria. Performance 

audits encompass a wide variety of objectives, including objectives 

related to assessing program effectiveness and results; economy and 

efficiency; internal control; compliance with legal or other 

requirements; and objectives related to providing prospective 

analyses, guidance, or summary information.) (Select one.) 

Organization 

Conducts 

Performance 

Audits 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Yes 38 95% 16 73% 60 91% 114 89% 

No 2 5% 6 27% 6 9% 14 11% 

Total 40 100% 22 100% 66 100% 128 100%

Q18 Annually, how many performance audits does your organization 

complete? (Give your best estimate.) 

Government Groups Average of Responses Number of Respondents

Federal 56.4 37 

State 51.3 16 

Local 10.7 61 

All 31.2 114 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

73

Q19 What percentage of your performance audits involve access to 

information problems? (Give your best estimate.) 

% of Performance 

Audits with Access 

Problems 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 8 21% 1 6% 12 20% 21 18% 

1%-5% 14 37% 7 44% 21 35% 42 37% 

6%-10% 6 16% 3 19% 12 20% 21 18% 

11%-25% 4 11% 1 6% 10 17% 15 13% 

26%-50% 5 13% 3 19% 3 5% 11 10% 

51%-75% 1 3% 0 0% 1 2% 2 2% 

76%-99% 0 0% 1 6% 1 2% 2 2% 

All 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 38 101% 16 100% 60 101% 114 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q20 How often, if at all, are your access to information problems for 

performance audits related to the following? 

a. Delays in obtaining records 

Delays in Obtaining 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Rarely 4 13% 2 13% 8 17% 14 15% 

Sometimes 13 43% 7 47% 21 44% 41 44% 

Often 9 30% 5 33% 17 35% 31 33% 

Always/almost always 4 13% 1 7% 1 2% 6 7% 

Totals 30 99% 15 100% 48 100% 93 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

74

b. Denials in obtaining most, if not all, records 

Denials in 

Obtaining Most 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 17 57% 7 50% 12 27% 36 41% 

Rarely 8 27% 6 43% 22 50% 36 41% 

Sometimes 5 17% 1 7% 9 21% 15 17% 

Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 30 101% 14 100% 44 100% 88 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

c. Denials of specific records 

Denials in 

Obtaining Specific 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 12 41% 5 33% 10 23% 27 31% 

Rarely 12 41% 4 27% 20 46% 36 41% 

Sometimes 5 17% 5 33% 12 27% 22 25% 

Often 0 0% 1 7% 1 2% 2 2% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 29 99% 15 100% 44 100% 88 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

75

d. Specific people (unavailable or uncooperative) 

Unavailability/ 

Uncooperativeness 

 of Specific People 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 4 13% 0 0% 1 2% 5 5% 

Rarely 9 30% 7 47% 12 26% 28 30% 

Sometimes 14 47% 6 40% 26 55% 46 50% 

Often 2 7% 2 13% 7 15% 11 12% 

Always/almost 

always 1 3% 0 0% 1 2% 2 2% 

Totals 30 100% 15 100% 47 100% 92 99% 

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q21 What percentage of your performance audits that have access to 

information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and 

timely)? (Give your best estimate.) 

% of Performance 

Audits with 

Satisfactory 

Resolution 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

1%-5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

6%-10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

11%-25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

26%-50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

51%-75% 3 10% 2 13% 7 15% 12 13% 

76%-99% 15 50% 4 27% 26 54% 45 48% 

All 12 40% 9 60% 14 29% 35 38% 

Totals 30 100% 15 100% 48 100% 93 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

76

Q22 Over the past 3 years, would you say that access to information 

problems on performance audits has increased, decreased, or 

remained the same? (Select one.) 

Access to Information 

Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Greatly increased 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 

Generally increased 6 17% 7 44% 7 13% 20 19% 

About the same 27 75% 9 56% 48 86% 84 78% 

Generally decreased 2 6% 0 0% 1 2% 3 3% 

Greatly decreased 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 36 101% 16 100% 56 101% 108 101%

Seven respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q23 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the trend over the past 3 

years with access to information for performance audits? 

Current 

Satisfaction With 

Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 7 19% 3 20% 12 20% 22 20% 

Generally satisfied 13 36% 7 47% 24 41% 44 40% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 11 31% 1 7% 18 31% 30 27% 

Generally 

dissatisfied 3 8% 4 27% 5 9% 12 11% 

Very dissatisfied 2 6% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 

Totals 36 100% 15 101% 59 101% 110 100%

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

77

Q24 Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your 

organization’s access to information on performance audits? (Select 

one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Access 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 10 26% 4 25% 13 22% 27 23% 

Generally satisfied 20 53% 10 63% 38 63% 68 60% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 6 16% 0 0% 6 10% 12 11% 

Generally dissatisfied 0 0% 2 13% 4 5% 6 4% 

Very dissatisfied 2 5% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 

Totals 38 100% 16 101% 61 100% 115 100%

One respondent selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

78

Evaluations/Inspections 

Q25 Does your organization conduct evaluations/inspections? (In-depth 

assessment of a major program, function, or activity (evaluation) or 

concise assessment of a specific office, event, issue, or problem 

(inspection). Evaluations/Inspections do not use Government 

Auditing Standards (also call the Yellow Book). (Select one.) 

Organization Conducts 

Evaluations/Inspections 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Yes 30 75% 11 50% 44 67% 85 66% 

No 10 5% 11 50% 22 33% 43 34% 

Total 40 100% 22 100% 66 100% 128 100% 

Q26 Annually, how many evaluations/inspections does your 

organization complete? (Give your best estimate.) 

Government Groups Average of Responses Number of Respondents 

Federal 18.6 32 

State 43.0 14 

Local 9.2 45 

All 17.7 91 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

79

Q27 What percentage of your evaluations/inspections involve access to 

information problems? (Give your best estimate.) 

% of Evaluations & 

Inspections with 

Access Problems 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 7 24% 4 36% 15 34% 26 31% 

1%-5% 10 35% 2 18% 13 30% 25 30% 

6%-10% 4 14% 3 27% 4 9% 11 13% 

11%-25% 5 17% 0 0% 4 9% 9 11% 

26%-50% 3 10% 1 9% 4 9% 8 10% 

51%-75% 0 0% 0 0% 2 5% 2 2% 

76%-99% 0 0% 1 9% 0 0% 1 1% 

All 0 0% 0 00 2 5% 2 2% 

Totals 29 100% 11 99% 44 101% 84 100%

One respondent selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q28 How often, if at all, are your access to information problems for 

evaluations/inspections related to the following? 

a. Delays in obtaining records 

Delays in 

Obtaining 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 1 4% 1 13% 1 3% 3 5% 

Rarely 6 25% 1 13% 5 15% 12 19% 

Sometimes 13 54% 3 38% 13 39% 29 45% 

Often 2 8% 3 38% 12 37% 17 26% 

Always/almost 

always 2 8% 0 0% 2 6% 4 6% 

Totals 24 99% 8 102% 33 100% 65 101%

None of the respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

80

b. Denials in obtaining most, if not all, records 

Denials in 

Obtaining Most 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 15 63% 4 50% 9 29% 28 44% 

Rarely 7 29% 4 50% 18 58% 29 46% 

Sometimes 2 8% 0 0% 4 13% 6 10% 

Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 24 100% 8 100% 31 100% 63 100%

None of the respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

c. Denials of specific records 

Denials in 

Obtaining 

Specific Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 12 50% 3 38% 9 29% 24 38% 

Rarely 6 25% 3 38% 18 58% 27 43% 

Sometimes 3 13% 2 25% 4 13% 9 14% 

Often 3 13% 0 0% 0 0% 3 5% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 24 101% 8 101% 31 100% 63 100%

None of the respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

81

d. Specific people (unavailable or uncooperative) 

Unavailability/ 

Uncooperativeness 

 of Specific People 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 2 8% 1 13% 1 3% 4 6% 

Rarely 10 42% 1 13% 7 22% 18 28% 

Sometimes 10 42% 6 75% 19 59% 35 55% 

Often 2 8% 0 0% 5 16% 7 11% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 24 100% 8 101% 32 100% 64 100%

None of the respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q29 What percentage of your evaluations/inspections that have access 

to information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and 

timely)? (Give your best estimate.) (Select one.) 

% of 

Evaluations/Inspections 

with Satisfactory 

Resolution 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

1%-5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 2% 

6%-10% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 

11%-25% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 

26%-50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

51%-75% 0 0% 0 0% 3 9% 3 5% 

76%-99% 9 39% 3 43% 21 64% 33 52% 

All 12 52% 4 57% 8 24% 24 38% 

Totals 23 99% 7 100% 33 100% 63 101%

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice 

. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

82

Q30 Over the past 3 years, would you say that access to information 

problems on evaluations/inspections has increased, decreased, or 

remained the same? (Select one.) 

Access to Information 

Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Greatly increased 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Generally increased 6 25% 3 27% 4 10% 13 17% 

About the same 16 67% 8 73% 32 78% 56 74% 

Generally decreased 2 8% 0 0% 4 10% 6 8% 

Greatly decreased 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 24 100% 11 100% 41 100% 76 100% 

Eight respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q31 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the trend over the past 3 

years with access to information for evaluations/inspections? 

(Select one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 5 19% 4 36% 9 21% 18 22% 

Generally satisfied 12 46% 4 36% 19 43% 35 43% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 6 23% 1 9% 11 25% 18 22% 

Generally dissatisfied 3 12% 2 18% 5 11% 10 12% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 26 100% 11 99% 44 100% 81 99% 

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

83

Q32 Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your 

organization’s access to information on evaluations/inspections? 

(Select one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Access 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 8 28% 4 36% 10 23% 22 27% 

Generally satisfied 16 55% 6 55% 18 42% 40 48% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 3 10% 0 0% 8 19% 11 13% 

Generally dissatisfied 2 7% 1 9% 6 14% 9 11% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 29 100% 11 100% 43 100% 83 100%

One respondent selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

84

Investigations 

Q33 Does your organization conduct investigations? (Investigating 

allegations of violations of laws, regulations, and administrative 

procedures.) (Select one.) 

Organization 

Conducts 

Investigations 

Federal Federal

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Yes 36 90% 15 68% 48 73% 99 77% 

No 4 10% 7 32% 18 27% 29 23% 

Total 40 100% 22 100% 66 100% 128 100%

Q34 Annually, how many investigations does your organization 

complete? (Give your best estimate.) 

Government Groups Average of Responses Number of Respondents 

Federal 228.0 33 

State 24.1 17 

Local 6.9 47 

All 85.0 97 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

85

Q35 What percentage of your investigations involve access to information 

problems? (Give your best estimate.) (Select one.) 

% of Investigations 

with Access 

Problems 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 8 22% 5 31% 15 31% 28 28% 

1%-5% 14 39% 6 38% 12 25% 32 32% 

6%-10% 5 14% 2 13% 6 13% 13 13% 

11%-25% 4 11% 2 13% 4 8% 10 10% 

26%-50% 3 8% 0 0% 3 6% 6 6% 

51%-75% 0 0% 0 0% 4 8% 4 4% 

76%-99% 2 6% 1 6% 2 4% 5 5% 

All 0 0% 0 0% 2 4% 2 2% 

Totals 36 100% 16 101% 48 99% 100 100%

One respondent selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q36 How often, if at all, are your access to information problems for 

investigations related to the following? 

a. Delays in obtaining records 

Delays in Obtaining 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 1 4% 0 0% 2 6% 3 4% 

Rarely 4 14% 0 0% 5 14% 9 12% 

Sometimes 15 54% 7 64% 15 43% 37 50% 

Often 7 25% 3 27% 11 31% 21 28% 

Always/almost 

always 1 4% 1 9% 2 6% 4 6% 

Totals 28 101% 11 100% 35 100% 74 100% 

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

86

b. Denials in obtaining most, if not all, records 

Denials in 

Obtaining Most 

Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 11 39% 3 27% 11 33% 25 35% 

Rarely 14 50% 6 55% 14 42% 34 47% 

Sometimes 3 11% 2 18% 4 12% 9 13% 

Often 0 0% 0 0% 3 9% 3 4% 

Always/almost 

always 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 

Totals 28 100% 11 100% 33 99% 72 100%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

c. Denials of specific records 

Denials in Obtaining 

Specific Records 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 8 29% 2 18% 9 27% 19 26% 

Rarely 12 43% 4 36% 13 39% 29 41% 

Sometimes 7 25% 4 36% 8 24% 19 26% 

Often 1 4% 1 9% 2 6% 4 6% 

Always/almost always 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 

Totals 28 101% 11 99% 33 99% 72 100%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

87

d. Specific people (unavailable or uncooperative) 

Unavailability/ 

Uncooperativeness 

of Specific People 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Never 4 15% 0 0% 2 6% 6 9% 

Rarely 11 42% 1 11% 10 29% 22 31% 

Sometimes 7 27% 7 78% 15 43% 29 41% 

Often 4 15 % 1 11% 6 17% 11 16% 

Always/almost always 0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 2 3% 

Totals 26 99% 9 100% 35 101% 70 100%

Seven respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q37 What percentage of your investigations that have access to 

information problems are satisfactorily resolved (complete and 

timely)? (Give your best estimate.) (Select one.) 

% of Investigations 

with 

Satisfactory 

Resolution 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

None 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 

1%-5% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 

6%-10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

11%-25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

26%-50% 2 7% 0 0% 1 3% 3 4% 

51%-75% 1 4% 0 0% 8 22% 9 12% 

76%-99% 17 61% 7 64% 16 43% 40 53% 

All 8 28% 4 36% 10 27% 22 29% 

Totals 28 100% 11 100% 37 101% 76 100%

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

88

Q38 Over the past 3 years, would you say that access to information 

problems on investigations has increased, decreased, or remained 

the same? (Select one.) 

Access to 

Information 

Trends 

Federal Federal 

% 

State State 

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Greatly increased 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Generally increased 3 8% 5 36% 4 9% 12 13% 

About the same 27 75% 8 57% 36 80% 71 75% 

Generally 

decreased 6 17% 1 7% 5 11% 12 13% 

Greatly decreased 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Totals 36 100% 14 100% 45 100% 95 101% 

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

Q39 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the trend over the past 3 

years with access to information for investigations? (Select one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Trends 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 6 16% 3 21% 10 22% 19 20% 

Generally satisfied 17 46% 6 43% 15 33% 38 39% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 9 24% 3 21% 13 28% 25 26% 

Generally dissatisfied 5 14% 2 14% 7 15% 14 14% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 37 100% 14 99% 46 100% 97 100%

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

89

Q40 Currently, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your 

organization’s access to information on investigations? (Select one.) 

Current Satisfaction 

With Access 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very satisfied 7 19% 4 29% 13 28% 24 25% 

Generally satisfied 25 68% 8 57% 19 41% 52 54% 

Neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied 3 8% 0 0% 7 15% 10 10% 

Generally dissatisfied 2 5% 2 14% 6 13% 10 10% 

Very dissatisfied 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Totals 37 100% 14 100% 46 99% 97 100%

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

90

Factors Inhibiting Access to Information

Q41 Considering the financial audits, performance audits, 

evaluations/inspections, and investigations that your organization 

conducts, how much of a role did the following factors plan in 

inhibiting your organization’s ability to access information? 

 

a. The other organizations said that it had insufficient funds to 

satisfy your requests. 

Insufficient 

Funds 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Major role 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Some role 2 5% 1 5% 2 3% 5 4% 

Minor role 8 21% 6 29% 11 17% 25 20% 

No role 28 74% 14 67% 50 78% 92 75% 

Totals 38 100% 21 101% 64 100% 123 100%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

b. The other organization said that it had insufficient personnel to 

satisfy your requests. 

Insufficient 

Personnel 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Major role 4 11% 1 5% 7 11% 12 10% 

Some role 12 32% 7 33% 17 27% 36 29% 

Minor role 12 32% 6 29% 24 38% 42 34% 

No role 10 26% 7 33% 15 23% 32 26% 

Totals 38 101% 21 100% 64 101% 123 100%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

91

c. The other organization said it already had too much work to satisfy 

your request. 

Too Much Work Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Major role 4 11% 2 10% 7 11% 13 11% 

Some role 12 32% 9 43% 22 34% 43 35% 

Minor role 11 29% 4 19% 17 27% 32 26% 

No role 11 29% 6 29% 18 28% 35 29% 

Totals 38 101% 21 101% 64 100% 123 101%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

d. The other organization management took too long to respond to 

requests for information. 

Management 

Slow to Respond 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 1 2% 0 0% 2 3% 3 2% 

Major role 11 28% 4 19% 13 20% 28 22% 

Some role 14 35% 8 38% 29 45% 51 41% 

Minor role 8 20% 4 19% 12 19% 24 19% 

No role 6 15% 5 24% 8 13% 19 15% 

Totals 40 100% 21 100% 64 100% 125 99% 

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

92

e. The other organization had privacy/confidentiality concerns. 

Privacy/ 

Confidentiality 

Concerns 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 1 3% 3 14% 2 3% 6 5% 

Major role 5 13% 3 14% 5 8% 13 10% 

Some role 13 33% 8 39% 12 19% 33 26% 

Minor role 11 28% 4 19% 32 50% 47 38% 

No role 10 25% 3 14% 13 20% 26 21% 

Totals 40 102% 21 100% 64 100% 125 100% 

Two respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

f. The other organization had concerns about security and 

safekeeping. 

Security/Safekeeping 

Concerns 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Major role 3 8% 3 14% 2 3% 8 6% 

Some role 11 28% 7 33% 7 11% 25 20% 

Minor role 12 30% 4 19% 27 42% 43 34% 

No role 14 35% 7 33% 28 44% 49 40% 

Totals 40 101% 21 99% 64 100% 125 100% 

Three respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

93

g. The other organization did not understand the importance of the 

request. 

Misunderstand 

the Request 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 

Major role 1 3% 0 0% 1 2% 2 2% 

Some role 9 23% 3 16% 14 22% 26 21% 

Minor role 15 38% 6 32% 25 40% 46 38% 

No role 14 35% 10 53% 23 37% 47 39% 

Totals 40 102% 19 101% 63 101% 122 101%

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

h. The other organization questioned the legal authority for the 

request. 

Questioned Legal 

Authority 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 1 3% 1 5% 0 0% 2 2% 

Major role 4 10% 4 19% 3 5% 11 9% 

Some role 6 15% 5 24% 11 18% 22 18% 

Minor role 17 44% 6 29% 21 33% 44 36% 

No role 11 28% 5 24% 28 44% 44 36% 

Totals 39 100% 21 101% 63 100% 123 101%

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

94

i. The other organization had limited experience with your 

organization. 

Limited 

Experience with 

Reviewing 

Organization 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Major role 3 8% 1 5% 6 10% 10 8% 

Some role 4 10% 5 24% 10 16% 19 15% 

Minor role 20 50% 8 38% 21 33% 49 40% 

No role 13 33% 7 33% 25 40% 45 36% 

Totals 40 101% 21 100% 63 101% 124 100% 

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

j. The other organization indicated that the request for information 

was ambiguous. 

Request Was 

Ambiguous 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Major role 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 

Some role 2 5% 2 10% 3 5% 7 6% 

Minor role 15 39% 6 29% 15 24% 36 29% 

No role 22 57% 13 62% 44 70% 79 64% 

Totals 39 101% 21 101% 63 101% 123 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

95

k. The other organization indicated that the request for information 

was not in the appropriate format. 

Request Not in 

Proper Format 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Major role 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Some role 2 5% 1 5% 1 2% 4 3% 

Minor role 7 18% 4 19% 13 21% 24 20% 

No role 29 77% 16 76% 48 77% 93 77% 

Totals 38 100% 21 100% 62 100% 121 100%

Five respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

l. The other organization was concerned about the public issuance of 

the information in the final report. 

Concerns about 

Public Disclosure 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Very major role 1 3% 0 0% 2 3% 3 2% 

Major role 1 3% 3 14% 7 11% 11 9% 

Some role 7 18% 9 43% 16 25% 32 26% 

Minor role 12 31% 2 10% 25 40% 39 32% 

No role 18 46% 7 33% 13 21% 38 31% 

Totals 39 101% 21 100% 63 100% 123 100% 

Four respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

96

m. Other 

Other Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total 

% 

Very major role 1 7% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 

Major role 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 1 3% 

Some role 0 0% 3 33% 2 13% 5 13% 

Minor role 4 27% 0 0% 1 7% 5 13% 

No role 10 67% 5 56% 12 80% 27 69% 

Totals 15 101% 9 100% 15 100% 39 101% 

Forty-six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

97

Useful Strategies 

Q42 Considering the financial audits, performance audits, 

evaluations/inspections, and investigations that your organization 

conducts, how useful have the following strategies been in helping 

your organization to access information? 

a. Encouraging the other organization’s management to 

support providing access to information. 

Encouraging 

Management to 

Support Access 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 14 37% 10 50% 19 30% 43 36% 

Moderately useful 11 29% 2 10% 14 22% 27 22% 

Somewhat useful 10 26% 5 25% 18 29% 33 27% 

A little useful 1 3% 1 5% 7 11% 9 7% 

Not at all useful 1 3% 0 0% 1 2% 2 2% 

Never tried 1 3% 2 10% 4 6% 7 6% 

Totals 38 101% 20 100% 63 100% 121 100%

Seven respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

98

b. Receiving interpersonal training to help with access to 

information concerns. 

Receiving 

Interpersonal 

Training 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 1 3% 2 10% 4 7% 7 6% 

Moderately useful 2 5% 0 0% 2 3% 4 3% 

Somewhat useful 7 19% 0 0% 11 18% 18 15% 

A little useful 10 27% 6 30% 10 17% 26 23% 

Not at all useful 3 8% 1 5% 2 3% 6 5% 

Never tried 14 38% 11 55% 31 52% 56 48% 

Totals 37 100% 20 100% 60 100% 117 100%

Eleven respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

c. Receiving technical and procedural training to help with 

access to information concerns. 

Receiving 

Technical or 

Procedural 

Training 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 2 5% 4 20% 8 13% 14 12% 

Moderately useful 6 16% 0 0% 5 8% 11 9% 

Somewhat useful 8 22% 7 35% 19 30% 34 28% 

A little useful 8 22% 2 10% 8 13% 18 15% 

Not at all useful 2 5% 1 5% 2 3% 5 4% 

Never tried 11 30% 6 30% 21 33% 38 32% 

Totals 37 100% 20 100% 63 100% 120 100%

Eight respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

99

d. Revising policies and procedures regarding access to 

information to improve efficiency and effectiveness. 

Revising Policies 

& Procedures to 

Improve 

Efficiency & 

Effectiveness 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 2 6% 1 5% 8 13% 11 9% 

Moderately useful 6 17% 3 15% 10 16% 19 16% 

Somewhat useful 8 22% 2 10% 11 19% 21 18% 

A little useful 7 19% 6 30% 8 13% 21 18% 

Not at all useful 2 6% 0 0% 2 3% 4 3% 

Never tried 11 31% 8 40% 22 36% 41 35% 

Totals 36 101% 20 100% 61 100% 117 99% 

Eleven respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

e. Addressing issues early in the process to avoid access 

issues before they occur. 

Addressing Issues 

Early in the 

Process 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 19 50% 12 60% 24 38% 55 45% 

Moderately useful 8 21% 3 15% 16 25% 27 22% 

Somewhat useful 8 21% 4 20% 13 20% 25 21% 

A little useful 1 3% 0 0% 6 9% 7 6% 

Not at all useful 1 3% 0 0% 1 2% 2 2% 

Never tried 1 3% 1 5% 4 6% 6 5% 

Totals 38 101% 20 100% 64 100% 122 101%

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

100

f. Having policies and procedures to address concerns about 

security and safekeeping of other organization’s 

information. 

Policy And 

Procedures for 

Security and 

Safekeeping 

Concerns 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 12 33% 12 57% 15 25% 39 33% 

Moderately useful 5 14% 3 14% 13 21% 21 18% 

Somewhat useful 12 33% 3 14% 15 25% 30 25% 

A little useful 0 0% 2 10% 7 12% 9 8% 

Not at all useful 0 0% 0 0% 3 5% 3 3% 

Never tried 7 20% 1 5% 8 13% 16 14% 

Totals 36 100% 21 100% 61 101% 118 101%

Ten respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

g. Having policies and procedures to address the 

privacy/confidentiality concerns of other organization’s 

information. 

Policy And 

Procedures for 

Privacy and 

Confidentiality 

Concerns 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 14 38% 12 57% 17 28% 43 37% 

Moderately useful 4 11% 3 14% 11 18% 18 15% 

Somewhat useful 14 38% 3 14% 16 27% 33 28% 

A little useful 1 3% 2 10% 7 12% 10 9% 

Not at all useful 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 2 2% 

Never tried 4 11% 1 5% 7 12% 12 10% 

Totals 37 101% 21 100% 60 100% 118 101%

Nine respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

101

h. Communicating frequently with other organizations to 

explain your missions, authority, and information 

requirements. 

Communicating 

Frequently with 

the Other 

Organization 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 16 42% 6 29% 19 30% 41 34% 

Moderately useful 13 34% 4 19% 12 19% 29 24% 

Somewhat useful 7 18% 8 38% 19 30% 34 28% 

A little useful 0 0% 1 5% 7 11% 8 7% 

Not at all useful 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 

Never tried 2 5% 2 10% 6 10% 10 8% 

Totals 38 99% 21 101% 63 100% 122 100%

Six respondents selected the “no answer” response choice. 

i. Sanitizing your reports to protect sensitive information. 

Sanitizing 

Reports To 

Protect Sensitive 

Information 

Federal Federal

% 

State State

% 

Local Local 

% 

Totals Total

% 

Very useful 16 46% 5 24% 15 24% 36 31% 

Moderately useful 8 23% 6 29% 11 18% 25 21% 

Somewhat useful 8 23% 3 14% 13 21% 24 20% 

A little useful 0 0% 2 10% 12 19% 14 12% 

Not at all useful 1 3% 1 5% 1 2% 3 3% 

Never tried 2 6% 4 19% 10 16% 16 14% 

Totals 35 101% 21 101% 62 100% 118 101%

Ten respondents selected the “no answer” response choice.