GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2001 INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT

Progress in 

Implementing the 1996 

Electronic Freedom of 

Information Act 

Amendments

GAO-01-378

Page 1 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Letr

March 16, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

United States Senate

The Honorable Stephen Horn

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 

Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

On December 19, 2000, we briefed your offices on our review of the 1996 

Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, known as e-FOIA. As 

you know, the Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to 

make certain types of information available for public inspection. e-FOIA, 

among other things, was intended to improve agency responsiveness and 

provide for greater public access to government information electronically. 

In response to your request, we reviewed the progress made at 25 major 

federal departments and agencies in implementing the e-FOIA 

amendments.

In brief, we found that agencies have implemented many of the e-FOIA 

provisions. All 25 agencies we reviewed have established electronic 

reading rooms. However, agencies have not made all required documents 

electronically available. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and other 

federal agencies have implemented reporting provisions required by 

e-FOIA, including annual workload reports. While these reports provide a 

good overview of FOIA activities across the government, data quality 

issues limit their usefulness.

This report officially transmits the results of our work and 

recommendations to assist the Department of Justice in providing better 

oversight of federal agencies’ implementation of the Freedom of 

Information Act. OMB and Justice’s co-directors of the Office of 

Information and Privacy (OIP) provided oral comments on the draft 

briefing slides. They agreed with the information provided and OIP plans to 
Page 2 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

implement the recommendations. The briefing slides, as amended, are 

reprinted as appendix I.1

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the public’s access to government records and information, as 

well as to enhance the usefulness of the information contained in agencies’ 

annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the Attorney General direct 

Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy to

• encourage agencies to make all required material electronically 

available, and

• improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing 

guidance that addresses the data quality issues we identified and 

(2) reviewing agencies’ report data for completeness and consistency.

We are sending copies of this report to Janice D. Schakowsky, Ranking 

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial 

Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives. In addition, we are providing copies to 

the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Director, Office of Management and 

Budget, and the Honorable John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General. This report 

is also available on our home page at www.gao.gov. If you have any 

questions on matters discussed in this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this 

assignment were Michael P. Fruitman, M. Yvonne Sanchez, and 

Kevin M. Tansey.

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues

1

Changes were minimal and do not affect the overall content.
Page 3 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments
Page 4 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments ApendxiI

Implementation of the 1996 Electronic

Freedom of Information Act Amendments

Briefing to the Staffs of

Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Patrick Leahy,

and the Subcommittee on Government

Management, Information, and Technology,

Committee on Government Reform,

House of Representatives

December 19, 2000
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 5 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

2

Overview

• Objective, Scope, and Methodology

• Background

• Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Process

• Progress on the Implementation of the Electronic FOIA

Amendments (e-FOIA)

• Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

• 20-Day Determination Period

• Use of Multi-Track and Expedited Processing

• Implementation of Reporting Provisions

• Conclusions

• Recommendations

• Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations

• Appendix II: Detailed Data from 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 6 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

3

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective:

To review the progress made in implementing e-FOIA amendments at

25 major federal departments and agencies

Scope:

Reviewed e-FOIA implementation regarding the

• use of electronic reading rooms for required material and public

availability of reference material for requesting records or

information

• 20-day period for determining whether to comply with requests,

and negotiation of scope with requester

• use of multi-track and expedited processing for improving agency

responsiveness

• reporting provisions specific to the Department of Justice and all

other federal agencies
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 7 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

4

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Methodology:

• Conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards, from June through October 2000

• Interviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Justice

officials about their efforts to guide agencies’ e-FOIA implementation

• Interviewed officials of eight agencies about their FOIA processes

and their experiences in implementing e-FOIA; these agencies were

selected because six received the largest volume of requests and

two have longstanding reported problems with backlogged requests

• Met with representatives of a few nonprofit and private organizations

-- identified by your offices--that are interested in FOIA issues
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 8 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

5

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Methodology (continued):

• Selected the 24 major agencies identified in the Chief Financial

Officers Act, plus the CIA, which together handle 97% of FOIA

requests governmentwide; for each agency, we reviewed:

• FY99 FOIA annual report data for aggregated and agencycomparative information; we did not independently verify the data

• main Internet and FOIA web sites for electronic availability of

documents; our review is neither representative of the entire

agency nor a determination of compliance because

• we did not check component-level FOIA web sites

• we could not determine if all applicable documents were posted

• Requested the 25 agencies to verify the results of our Internet review;

92% responded
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 9 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

6

Background

History of FOIA and 1996 e-FOIA Amendments

• FOIA was the first law to establish a legal right of access to

government information, subject to certain statutory exemptions

• Enacted in 1966, and amended in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996

• Through e-FOIA, Congress recognized problems with agency

responsiveness and tried to encourage improvements by

• providing requesters with an opportunity to limit the scope of their

requests to obtain faster processing

• authorizing agencies to implement multi-track processing of

requests, giving them flexibility to respond to relatively simple

requests more quickly

• requiring agencies to implement expedited processing for

requests determined to meet criteria for “compelling need”
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 10 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

7

Background

History of FOIA and 1996 e-FOIA Amendments

(continued)

• e-FOIA also encouraged on-line, public access to government

information through the use of electronic reading rooms by

• making categories of records available in electronic form(s), such

as agency final opinions, policy statements/interpretations,

administrative staff manuals, frequently requested records, and an

index of frequently requested records

• making agencies’ annual FOIA reports electronically available

• e-FOIA provided for the public availability of FOIA-related information,

specifically

• FOIA guidance, including information on multi-track processing,

expedited processing, and fee schedules

• reference materials/handbooks on requesting records or

information, including an index and description of major information

systems and a description of record locator systems
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 11 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

8

Background

Roles of OMB and Justice

• OMB officials have coordinated with Justice to provide guidance

and direction regarding FOIA, with Justice acting as the main point

of contact for agencies

• In 1998, OMB issued guidance on developing a handbook for

individuals seeking access to public information and on the

Government Information Locator Service (GILS)1

• Within Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) has

primary responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal

agencies on FOIA issues

1The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 directed the establishment of GILS to help the public locate and

access information throughout the federal government. GILS is a decentralized collection of agency-based

information locators using technology to direct users to relevant information resources.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 12 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

9

Overview of the FOIA Process

• In FY99, 25 agencies processed about 1.9 million FOIA requests,

providing records in full for 82%; 23 agencies reported that 1.6 million

requests were processed with median times of 20 days or fewer, while

140,000 were processed with medians over 20 days1

• Various factors determine the workflow, fees, and time needed to

process a FOIA request, such as

• amount and type of information requested and where in the

organization the responsive records would likely be found

• category of requester (i.e., commercial, educational)

• completeness of the request

• In responding to requests, FOIA offices interact with several external

entities--the requester, the office(s) responsible for providing the

responsive records, and other federal agencies that send and receive

FOIA referrals

1Based on agencies’ FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data); processing data for about

145,000 requests were not included due to either incomplete (for 2 agencies) or inconsistently reported data.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 13 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

10

Overview of the FOIA Process

Generic FOIA Process

Agency

Receives

Request from

Requester

Process Request Letter

• log in “perfected” FOIA requesta

• create case file

• scope request

• generate initial response

 (e.g., acknowledgment letter)

Retrieve Records

• search for responsive records

• request records

• review responsive records

• image records (if applicable)

Prepare Records for Release

• make redactions

• apply exemption codes

• calculate fees

Approve Release of Records

• supervisory review of redacted

records

• generate response

• approve release

Agency

Releases

Records to

Requester

a A FOIA request that adequately describes the records sought, that has been received by the FOIA office of

the agency/component in possession of the records, and for which there is no remaining question about fees.

 Note: At any point in the process, an agency may refer a request to another agency for processing or consultation.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 14 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

11

Overview of the FOIA Process

Retrieval of Records and Line-by-Line Review

Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that processing

complex FOIA requests is labor-intensive because

• FOIA offices, as a rule, are not the owners of the responsive

records and are dependent on other units to search for and provide

the requested information--generally not a high priority for them

• searching for and retrieving responsive records often takes a

significant amount of effort, especially when responding to broad

(e.g., agencywide) requests

• some requests involve hundreds or thousands of pages that

require line-by-line review to ensure that the proper legal

exemptions are applied
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 15 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

12

Overview of the FOIA Process

Size and Content of Records Affects Disposition of

Requests, Which Varies Across Agencies

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

• Every request is different--the type, size, and content of the

responsive records may require significant processing time

• Examples of varying effects on disposition of requests:

• for 93% of its requests, USDA provided records in full, generally

because they were requests for individuals’ own records, which

require less review for exemptions; of its 80,000 requests

processed, exemptions were taken 2,727 times, 55% for privacyrelated reasons

• for 28% of its requests, NSF provided records in full; of its 169

requests processed, exemptions were taken 118 times, 71% for

privacy-related reasons
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 16 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

13

Overview of the FOIA Process

Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AIDCIAUSDADOCDODEDDOEHHSHUDDOIDOJDOLStateDOTTreasVAEPAFEMAGSANASANSFNRCOPMSBASSA

Grants Partial Grants Denials Not Disclosed for Other Reasons

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

Note: HUD reported a single total for denials and partial grants
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 17 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

14

Overview of the FOIA Process

Need for Additional Staff Cited as a Barrier in Implementing

e-FOIA

• Officials at seven of the eight agencies--and representatives of

nonprofit and private organizations--interviewed said agencies need

more staff to improve their responsiveness to FOIA requests and

decrease their number of pending requests

• Officials at three agencies cited the lack of available people with the

knowledge and experience to review and redact classified records,

due in part to “special searches” (e.g., the Nazi War Crimes

Disclosure Act)

• According to FBI officials, over the past 4 years, the FBI has

reduced its backlog of pending requests from about 18,000 to

4,000, primarily due to its staffing increase

• Echoing a 1993 Attorney General memo to agency heads, OIP

officials see a lack of funds and other resources as the greatest

barrier to more effective e-FOIA implementation
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 18 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

15

Overview of FOIA Process

Use of IT Tools in Processing Requests

• Agencies are increasingly looking at automated FOIA processing to

enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their operations

• Capabilities include:

• Scanning and Imaging: scanning and converting paper documents

to electronic images or text; once converted, information can be

searched and modified electronically at a computer workstation

• Workflow: creating and tracking cases, routing information

throughout an office, and collecting and reporting workload data

• Document Management: storing, redacting, and archiving

responsive records

• At least 8 of the 25 agencies and/or their components use FOIA

application software
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 19 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

16

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

• In determining the electronic or public availability of documents, we

categorized the results of our Internet review as:

• available -- found the required material

• partially available -- found a portion of the required material

• not found -- did not find any of the required material

• For 16 agencies we found FOIA guidance on agency-specific

processes and fees, while for the remaining 9 we found material for

at least 2 of the 4 areas (p. 17)

• For 15 agencies we found documents for all required categories of

records, while for the remaining 10 we found documents for at least

3 of the 6 required categories (p. 18)

• For 12 agencies we found reference material addressing all 4 areas

specified by e-FOIA, 6 addressed 2 to 3 areas, and the remaining 7

only addressed 1 area (p.19)
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 20 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

17

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

Available FOIA Guidance

● = Available = Partially available❍ = Not found n/a = Not applicable; agency uses single-track

process
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 21 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

18

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

Electronic Availability of Required Documents

● = Available = Partially available❍ = Not found n/a = Not applicable
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 22 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

19

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

Public Availability of Reference Material

● = Available = Partially available ❍ = Not found
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 23 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

20

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

Web Page Features Used to Facilitate Public Access

• FOIA web page (all 25 agencies)

• FOIA web page link on agency’s home page (19)

• List of FOIA contacts or links to FOIA offices (16 of the 17 agencies

with multiple FOIA offices)

• Programmatic information on obtaining public services (25)

• Links from agency web pages to other organizational units (23)

• Web site search feature (24)

• Ability to submit FOIA requests electronically (13)

Note: Justice established a feature in its newsletter called “Web Site Watch” that encourages the development of

agency Internet sites for FOIA purposes. According to Justice officials, the use of e-mail and the Internet for

submitting requests electronically will increase in the future, as agencies become more technically sophisticated.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 24 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

21

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

Internet Provides Vehicle for Making Information Available

to the Public

• Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they

• are continuing to improve their electronic reading rooms

• use the Internet to provide information to the public well beyond

what e-FOIA requires, which they hope will decrease the number of

FOIA requests

• OMB officials also said agencies are making a lot more information

available on the Internet beyond e-FOIA (e.g., the FirstGov initiative1)

• Officials at six of the eight agencies stated that while more information

is available on the Internet, the public may be generating more FOIA

requests or more complex ones because

• individuals are learning more about the Internet and government

services

• highly publicized topics in the media generate a lot of attention for

federal web sites 1FirstGov is a portal designed to provide a centralized location to find information from local, state, and

federal government agency web sites.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 25 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

22

20-Day Determination Period

Agencies Consider Requirement Impractical

• FOIA requires agencies to (1) determine within 20 working days

whether to fulfill requests and immediately notify requesters, and

(2) make releasable records promptly available

• Despite the implication of a two-step process in the statutory

language, Justice and other agency officials said that, in most cases,

agencies make the determination and notify the requester concurrent

with their final response to the FOIA request

• Officials at seven of the eight agencies stated that the 20-day

requirement was impractical because

• this period has often expired before agencies have retrieved the

records needed, or are in a position to make a determination1

• it would not be cost-effective to issue determination letters

separate from final responses in all required cases

1For example, CIA acknowledgment letters cite the agency’s backlog and include language that states (in

case the requester chooses not to wait for responsive records), “...Since we cannot respond within the 20

working days stipulated by the Act, you have the right to consider this as a denial and may appeal....”
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 26 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

23

20-Day Determination Period

Agencies’ Median Processing Time

• Justice officials said that, as a practical matter, they consider the

e-FOIA provision to report data on median processing days the

basis for measuring compliance with the 20-day requirement

• While we have concerns regarding the data reliability of agencies’

FY99 FOIA annual report, the best available data on median

processing times indicate that for 19 agencies

• 79% of requests were processed on a single-track system with

medians ranging from 6 to 53 days1

• 11% were processed as simple requests with medians ranging

from 7 to 48 days

• 8% were processed as complex requests with medians ranging

from 17 to 308 days

• 2% were processed as expedited requests with medians ranging

from 2 to 168 days 1A single-track system processes all requests on a first-in, first-out basis (FIFO); a multi-track processing system

categorizes them in 2 or more tracks (e.g., simple and complex), and then processes them on a FIFO basis.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 27 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

24

1,117,898

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

12678

101112131415161719202125262829303839455366

104187228308

2,337

Median Days

20-Day Determination Period

Distribution of Requests Processed by Median Days

89% of requests

Note: Except for the end points (1 and 2,337), only medians with over 1,000 requests are included in the graph; data from 23 agencies a Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values

Requests Processed

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

a
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 28 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

25

20-Day Determination Period

Discussion of Scope Has Improved Responsiveness

• Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they contacted

requesters, as needed, about limiting the scope of their requests to

improve responsiveness when the 20-day period could not be met

• Overall, they saw this e-FOIA provision as beneficial

• Officials cited examples of individuals who were not aware of

the extent of records and associated fees involved in their

requests

• For example, to deal with growing backlogs of requests, in 1997

the FBI implemented a “negotiation team” to communicate and

negotiate with FOIA requesters of voluminous records
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 29 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

26

Use of Multi-Track and Expedited

Processing

• Multi-track processing is an agency-optional system in which

simple requests requiring relatively minimal review are placed on

one processing track, and more voluminous and complex requests

are placed on one or more other tracks; expedited processing

involves an agency decision to expedite the handling of a request

when a requester has shown an exceptional need or urgency for the

records that warrants prioritization over earlier requests

• 18 agencies reported data for multi-track processing and all 25

agencies reported data for expedited processing1

• Officials at seven of the eight agencies interviewed said the multitrack provision has been helpful, although two of the seven said it

has produced only marginal gains

• Officials of all eight agencies said they consider requests for

expedited processing, but this is granted in few cases

1FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 30 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

27

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP)

Justice implemented provisions in e-FOIA that direct the U.S. Attorney

General to

• develop, in consultation with OMB, reporting and performance

guidelines for agencies’ FOIA annual reports

• make these annual reports available from a single electronic

access point

• submit a Justice annual report to include

1) a list of FOIA court cases, exemptions involved, disposition of

each case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed

2) a description of activities undertaken by Justice to encourage

agency compliance
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 31 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

28

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP)

(continued)

Justice reported the following activities, primarily through OIP, for 1999:

• provided about 3,000 responses to requests for assistance

• issued policy guidance

• distributed a quarterly newsletter to about 5,500 subscribers

• developed research and reference materials, such as the Freedom

of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview

• provided about 180 training presentations

• briefed individuals interested in FOIA operations, such as

representatives of foreign governments

• provided responses to congressional and public inquiries

Officials at all eight agencies interviewed provided positive feedback

about the support they received from OIP
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 32 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

29

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Reporting Inconsistencies and Data Quality Problems

Limit Usefulness of FY99 Annual Report Data

• According to OIP officials, they frequently provide guidance in

response to questions from agencies on preparation of their annual

reports, and receive these reports, but do not review them for

content or accuracy

• e-FOIA authorizes Justice to “establish additional requirements for

such reports as the Attorney General determines may be useful.”

• While we did not perform a full validation of the agencies’ annual

reports to determine their accuracy, we did identify a number of data

deficiencies in preparing aggregated and agency-comparative

information
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 33 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

30

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Examples of Reporting Inconsistencies and Data Quality

Problems

• Unclear criteria for defining a FOIA request: Of the three federal

agencies that deliver health care services, VA counted first-party

requests for medical records as FOIA requests in FY99, resulting in

a 447% increase; in contrast, HHS only counted them as Privacy

Act requests, and DOD was unable to verify if this type of request

was properly counted

• Different ways of counting requests: Officials of at least three

components within Justice stated that they counted each “subject”

on whom information was requested as a separate request, while

those at the other seven agencies interviewed said they counted

each request letter as one request
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 34 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

31

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Reporting Inconsistencies in “Compliance with Time Limits”

Section Further Limit Use of Agency Data

In addition to data discrepancies we noted, 12 agencies reported

certain limitations associated with their data in the section of the FOIA

annual report that addressed compliance with time limits; for example:

• Understated “processing” data: Four agencies have incomplete

data because they did not report median days by type of multi-track

process for either some or all of their components

• Overstated “processing” data: EPA reported action office

assignments1 rather than requests processed, which overstated its

count by 142% (a difference of 23,707)

• Inconsistent ways of reporting median processing time: OIP

guidance states that, when practical, agencies should report the

median processing time in working days, but only 5 of the 25

agencies reported doing so; 5 reported by calendar days, 1 reported

by both, and 14 did not state a basis; OIP officials said it should be

assumed these 14 agencies reported in working days

1EPA defines action office assignments as “The EPA component office(s) where the FOI office assigns a

request for action and direct reply to the requester. Many initial requests are assigned to multiple components

for separate responses/action.”
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 35 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

32

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

FY98 869,576 863,849 125,926

FY99 1,908,083 1,883,310 151,141

Received Processed Pending

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Aggregated FY99 Data for Requests Received, Processed,

and Pending

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (self-reported data).

• The 25 agencies received

119% more requests in FY99

than in the previous year

• VA accounted for about 90%

of the increase in FY99 for

requests received and

processed due to a change

in reporting of first-party

medical record requests

• For FY99, five agencies--VA,

Justice, SSA, DOD, and

USDA--received 89% of the

total requests received

Note: FY99 reported data are used for “requests pending at

the end of the FY98” because of discrepancies noted between

FY98 and FY99 annual reports
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 36 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

33

Grants

82%

Not Disclosed for 

Other Reasons

12%

Partial Grants

4% Denials

2%

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Aggregated FY99 Data on the Disposition of Processed

Requests

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

• Grants are agency decisions to

disclose all records in full

• Partial grants are agency decisions

to disclose a record in part,

deleting information determined to

be exempt under one or more

exemptions, or a decision to

disclose some records in their

entirety, but to withhold others in

whole or in part

• Denials are agency decisions not

to release any part of the

requested record(s) because all

information in the record(s) is

determined to be exempt under

one or more exemptions
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 37 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

34

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Aggregated FY99 Data on Statutory Exemptions Used

Exemptions are for matters that are

(1) to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (7) compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

(2) related to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency (7a) interfere with enforcement proceedings

(3) specially exempted from disclosure by statute (7b) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information (7c) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

(5) inter- or intra-agency memos or letters not available by law (7d) disclose the identity of a confidential source

(6) personnel and medical files which constitute an unwarranted (7e) risk circumvention of the law

 invasion of privacy (7f) endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

(8) for the regulation of financial institutions

Note: HHS and Treas/IRS “7” exemptions included under “7a” (9) geological and geophysical information concerning wells

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

3%

6% 7%

5%

14%

22%

9%

0.1%

21%

8%

3%

1% 0.1% 0.02%

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 7f 8 9

Exemptions

Percentage
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 38 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

35

33%

27%

11%

8% 6% 5% 4% 4%

2%

0

10

20

30

40

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Aggregated FY99 Data on Other Reasons Records Were

Not Disclosed

No

Record

Other Referred Not

Proper

Request

Request

Withdrawn

Duplicate

Request

Not An

Agency

Record

Not

Reasonably

Described

Fee -

Related

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data). Percentage
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 39 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

36

Upheld

32%

Partially 

Reversed

15%

Reversed

5%

Not Disclosed 

for Other 

Reasons

48%

• Appeal rates for the 25

agencies ranged from 0.2%

for VA to 13% for Interior,

with an overall agency

average of 4%

• About 10,400 appeals were

processed, which is 3% of

the total requests processed,

excluding requests that were

fully granted

Implementation of Reporting Provisions

Aggregated FY99 Data on Disposition of Appeals

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 40 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

37

Conclusions

Many e-FOIA provisions have been implemented:

• Agencies use electronic reading rooms to provide access to

documents and reference materials; however, not all required

documents were electronically available as of October 2000

• Agency officials interviewed consider the 20-day period for

determining whether to comply with requests impractical, but view

discussions with requesters as beneficial

• Of the 1.9 million requests processed in FY99, 1.7 million requests

(89%) were processed with medians of 21 days or less

• Agencies have implemented multi-track and expedited processing

• Agencies’ annual reports provide an overview of FOIA activities,

but data quality issues limit their usefulness
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 41 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

38

Recommendations

To improve the public’s access to government records and

information, as well as to enhance the usefulness of the information

contained in agencies’ annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the

Attorney General direct Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy to

• encourage agencies to make all required material electronically

available, and

• improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by

(1) providing guidance that addresses the data quality issues we

identified and

(2) reviewing agencies’ report data for completeness and

consistency.
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 42 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

39

Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations

AID Agency for International Development DOT Department of Transportation

CIA* Central Intelligence Agency Treas Department of the Treasury

USDA* Department of Agriculture VA* Department of Veterans Affairs

DOC Department of Commerce EPA Environmental Protection Agency

DOD* Department of Defense FEMA Federal Emergency Management

ED Department of Education Agency

DOE Department of Energy GSA General Services Administration

HHS* Department of Health and Human Services NASA National Aeronautics and Space

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Administration

 Development NSF National Science Foundation

DOI Department of the Interior NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

DOJ* Department of Justice OPM Office of Personnel Management

DOL Department of Labor SBA Small Business Administration

State* Department of State SSA* Social Security Administration

* We interviewed FOIA officials of these agencies
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 43 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

40

1,151,326

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

AIDCIA

USDA

DOCDOD

ED

DOEHHS

HUD

DOI

DOJDOL

StateDOT

Treas

VA

EPA

FEMA

GSA

NASA

NSF

NRC

OPM

SBASSA

a Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values

b HUD OIG data not included

c Reflects a 447% increase over FY98 due to a change in reporting of first-party medical record requests

d Reflects a 114% increase in workload, primarily due to genealogy research by requesters

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Requests Received

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data). Number of Requests

a

d c b
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 44 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

41

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

AIDCIA

USDA

DOCDOD

ED

DOE

HHSHUD

DOI

DOJ

DOL

State

DOT

Treas

VA

EPA

FEMA

GSA

NASA

NSF

NRC

OPM

SBASSA

Pending FY98 Pending FY99

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Pending Requests at End of Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

Number of Requests
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 45 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

42

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Proportion of Pending Requests to Total Workload

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AIDCIAUSDADOCDODEDDOEHHSHUDDOIDOJDOLStateDOTTreasVAEPAFEMAGSANASANSFNRCOPMSBASSA

Pending Requests Processed Requests a “Total workload” is the total of processed and pending requests b Includes FBI’s proportion of 23% pending requests

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

a

b
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 46 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

43

• Data for six agencies are not shown above: HHS, Treasury, NASA, and SSA because their processing time data were incomplete,

and Justice and FEMA because they reported component-by-component only, and not on an agencywide basis

• Agencies reported median days in calendar days (AID, DOD, ED, State, FEMA), working days (EPA, GSA, NASA, NSF, SBA), both

calendar and working days (DOT), or did not state a basis for reporting (CIA, USDA, DOC, DOE, HUD, DOI, DOJ, DOL, VA, NSF,

OPM, HHS, Treasury, SSA); OIP guidance states that, when practical, agencies should report the median in working days a State reported that median days are based on the dates that requests were received or acknowledgement letters sent, which in

some cases may include requests that are not yet “perfected” b EPA counted requests by assignments rather than requests processed and counted processing data under tracks labeled as

"basic," "unusual," and "exceptional;" we categorized unusual and exceptional requests as "complex" c EPA's median days for "complex" is based on the 25 days reported for 99% of its complex requests and excludes data for 8

requests processed with a median of 55 days

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AIDCIAUSDADOCDODEDDOEHUDDOIDOLStateDOTVAEPAGSANSFNRCOPMSBA

Simple Complex Single-Track 20-day requirement

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Median Days to Process Requests

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

Median Days

b,c

Notes:

a
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 47 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

AIDCIA

USDA

DOCDOD

ED

DOE

HUD

DOI

DOJ

DOL

State

DOT

Treas

VA

EPA

FEMA

GSA

NASA

NSF

NRC

OPM

SBA

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Median Days Requests Were Pending at the End of the

Fiscal Year

Note: HHS and SSA are not included because of incomplete data

a Includes FBI’s reported median days of 252 b NRC data excludes 4 requests pending with a median of 198 days 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

Median Days

a b
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 48 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

45

a Adjustment made for USDA, DOC, and NSF in reported part-time work-years to reflect reported total work years

b DOE data reflect work years reported; however, there is a discrepancy in the number reported for “total work years” c HUD and GSA noted that data are understated and do not adequately portray agency work-year investment

d Includes FBI’s reported full-time staff of 671

0

200

400

600

800

1 ,0 0 0

1 ,2 0 0

AIDCIA

USDA

DOCDOD

ED

DOEHHS

HUD

DOI

DOJDOL

StateDOT

Treas

VA

EPA

FEMA

GSA

NASA

NSF

NRC

OPM

SBASSA

Part-Time

Full-Time

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

FOIA Staffing

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

Number of Staff

a d c b c a
Appendix I

December 19, 2000, Briefing on 

Implementation of e-FOIA Amendments

Page 49 GAO-01-378 e-FOIA Amendments

46

Note: GSA is not included because it did not provide cost data 

a DOE reported a discrepancy of $654,061 between processing and total costs; we used processing costs

b Includes FBI’s reported costs of $33 million 











	
































 

!"

#

#!

#$ "

%

Appendix II: 25 Agencies’ FY99 FOIA Reports

Total FOIA Costs

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-reported data).

FOIA Costs

a b

(310311) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00