Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

FREEDOM OF 

INFORMATION ACT 

DHS Has Taken Steps 

to Enhance Its 

Program, but 

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Efficiency 

and CostEffectiveness 

March 2009 

GAO-09-260 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2009

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 

DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and CostHighlights of GAO-09-260, a report to Effectiveness

congressional committees 

The Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requires federal agencies to 

generally provide the public with 

access to government information. 

In December 2005, the President 

issued Executive Order 13392, to

improve agencies’ FOIA 

processing. The order required 

each agency to review its

operations and develop plans for 

improvement.

Since its establishment, the 

Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) has accounted for a major 

and increasing portion of pending

FOIA requests governmentwide.

While it has reported achieving a 

notable reduction since 2006, DHS 

still possesses the largest backlog 

of overdue requests in the 

government. GAO was asked to

determine (1) what key steps DHS 

has taken to enhance its FOIA 

program, and (2) what 

opportunities exist to improve the 

efficiency and cost-effectiveness of

FOIA operations across the 

department. To do this, GAO 

reviewed DHS’s improvement plan;

examined policies, procedures, and 

other documentation; and

interviewed agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that key 

practices used by certain DHS 

components and other agencies be 

implemented more consistently 

across the department. DHS 

concurred with GAO’s assessment 

and recommendations. 

DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. DHS developed an 

improvement plan that focused on eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, 

implementing enhanced training requirements, and deploying more advanced 

technology. Further, the DHS Privacy Office has initiated actions to ensure 

policy compliance and provide oversight of FOIA operations throughout the 

department’s component agencies, including developing a departmentwide 

handbook, monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting 

relevant training for employees. As a result, DHS has reported reducing its 

backlog by about 24 percent since implementing its plan. 

However, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and costeffectiveness of FOIA processing across the department. Specifically,

implementation of the following practices could facilitate the processing of 

information requests at a number of its major components: 

• Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for 

monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help reduce the 

backlog of open requests. 

• Component-specific training. Component-specific training could 

enhance the efficiency of processing within component agencies. 

• Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online 

access to information concerning the status of their requests could 

contribute to better customer service and higher staff productivity. 

• Electronic dissemination of records. Releasing records in an 

electronic format could provide cost savings and increase efficiency. 

• Electronic redaction. By adopting electronic redaction more 

broadly, DHS may be able to reduce the staff time otherwise spent 

manually redacting records, while also improving the consistency of 

its responses to requests. 

By implementing these practices—which are already being used by certain 

DHS components and other agencies—across major DHS components, the 

department could further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, improve 

customer service, and respond to information requests in a more timely 

fashion. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-09-260.

For more information, contact Gregory C. 

Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or 

wilshuseng@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program 10 

Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing 

within Its Components 14 

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 26 

Agency Comments 26 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 30 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33 

Tables 

Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its 

Major Components 12 

Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume 19 

Figure 

Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process 8 

Page i GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

OIP Office of Information and Privacy 

OPEN Government Act Openness Promotes Effectiveness in 

our National Government Act of 2007 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration 

 Services

USSS United States Secret Service 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

March 20, 2009 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable David E. Price 

Chairman 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)1

 establishes that federal agencies

must generally provide the public with access to government information, 

thus enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions. 

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

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

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

and serious health hazards. 

In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, aimed at 

improving agencies’ disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.2

 The 

focus of the order was to achieve measurable improvements in processing 

(including reducing the backlog of overdue requests) and to reform 

programs that did not produce appropriate results. Among other things, 

this order required each agency to review its FOIA operations and develop 

improvement plans; each agency was to submit a report to the Attorney 

General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

summarizing the results of the agency’s review and including a copy of its 

plan. These plans were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and 

 1

5 U.S.C. § 552. 

2

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

Dec. 14, 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

timetables, by which the agency head was to evaluate the agency’s success 

in implementing the plan. Agencies were also required to include a section 

in their fiscal year 2006 and 2007 annual reports reporting on progress in 

implementing their plans.

A major focus of the executive order was the reduction or elimination of 

“backlog”: requests for records that have not been responded to within the 

statutory time limit—generally 20 working days.3

 (For clarity, we refer to 

this as “backlog of overdue requests” or “overdue requests” to distinguish 

them from “pending requests,” which are all open requests, whether or not 

they have been responded to within the statutory time limit.) The 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accounts for a major portion of 

pending requests governmentwide and possesses the largest backlog of 

overdue requests in the government.

In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees on 

Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of DHS’s FOIA 

program. As agreed, our specific objectives were to determine (1) what 

key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what 

opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

of FOIA operations across the department. 

To determine the key steps DHS has taken to enhance its program, we 

reviewed the goals contained in the DHS FOIA improvement plan and

progress made on these goals, as reported in DHS’s annual reports. We 

also assessed actions taken to achieve these goals at seven major DHS 

component agencies—those with the largest number of pending cases at 

the end of fiscal year 2007. These components are U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United States Secret Service 

(USSS), and the United States Coast Guard. 

 3

This time may be extended by no more than 10 days in “unusual circumstances,” such as

when requests involve a voluminous amount of records or require consultation with 

another agency. The time limit refers to the period for the agency to make a determination 

whether to comply with the request. The requester is to be "immediately" notified of the 

determination, the rationale, and of appeal rights for adverse determinations. The recent

OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-175) has addressed when the 20-day period

commences and the circumstances under which the period can be suspended (or "tolled"). 

Page 2 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

To determine what opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency 

and cost-effectiveness of operations across the department, we analyzed

documentation from DHS regarding program structure, procedures, and 

resources. We also reviewed similar documentation from the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State—two agencies with types of 

information similar to DHS—and compared their programs with those of 

DHS. A more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology is provided in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to March 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. Specifically, DHS has 

developed an improvement plan that included goals focused on 

eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, implementing enhanced 

training requirements, and deploying advanced technology. Further, the 

DHS Privacy Office has initiated several actions to ensure policy 

compliance and provide oversight of FOIA processing within departmental 

component agencies, such as developing a departmentwide handbook, 

monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting pertinent 

training for employees. As a result, three components have reported 

significantly reducing their backlog of overdue requests. For example, 

USCIS has reduced its backlog from approximately 89,000 in September 

2006 to about 70,000 in October 2008, a 21 percent reduction. Overall, the 

department has reported achieving a backlog reduction of about 24 

percent since implementation of its improvement plan. 

Results in Brief 

Nevertheless, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and 

cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. Specifically, 

consistent implementation of the following practices across major 

departmental components could facilitate the department’s processing of 

information requests: 

• Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for 

monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help components 

reduce their backlogs. Three of the seven major component agencies 

within DHS have reported implementing monitoring and oversight 

Page 3 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

mechanisms within their programs and have reduced their backlogs. The

remaining four have not implemented such mechanisms, nor have they 

made comparable reductions in their backlogs. By more consistently 

establishing monitoring and oversight processes, DHS could reduce the 

risk of not being able to provide responses to requests within the statutory 

time limits.

• Component-specific training. Component-specific training—which goes 

beyond general training to address processing details that are unique 

within each of the components—could enhance the consistency and 

efficiency of processing within those components. Of the seven major 

components, five have begun implementing in-house component-specific 

training for their staff. Officials from one of these components stated that 

staff appeared more prepared to respond to requests, particularly 

regarding the application of exemptions. While the other DHS components 

provide some form of training to their staff, it is not tailored to their 

unique needs and circumstances. By developing and implementing 

specialized training programs for their staff, components may be able to 

increase the consistency and efficiency of their processing. 

• Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online access 

to information concerning the status of their requests can contribute to 

improved customer service and staff productivity. Two of the seven major 

components have deployed or are in the process of deploying an online 

status-check service, while five do not provide the service. Officials from 

the component that has deployed the service reported a reduction in the 

number of customer service calls, which has allowed staff to spend more 

time on other duties. By implementing this service more broadly, the 

department might be able to realize cost savings and customer service 

benefits. 

• Dissemination of records in an electronic format. The format (paper or 

CD) in which a FOIA office releases records to requesters can affect 

operating expenditures and processing efficiency. Three of the seven 

major components have adopted electronic dissemination for larger 

requests and reported reducing operating costs as a result. By 

disseminating more records in an electronic form, DHS may be able to

reduce the operational costs of processing requests. 

• Electronic redaction. Currently, five of DHS’s seven major components 

have broadly adopted electronic redaction processes and have reported 

gains in staff efficiency as a result. The other two major components 

continue to manually redact most records. By adopting electronic 

redaction more broadly, these components may be able to reduce the time 

Page 4 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

otherwise spent manually redacting records, while also improving the

consistency of their products. 

To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the department’s 

FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security take actions to ensure that these key practices are consistently 

adopted across the department’s major components. In written comments 

on a draft of this report, DHS concurred with our assessment and 

recommendations and described actions underway to address the 

recommendations. 

FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and 

information on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability 

in government. Before the act (originally enacted in 1966),4

 the 

government required individuals to demonstrate “a need to know” before 

granting the right to examine federal records. FOIA established a “right to

know” standard, under which an organization or any member of the public 

could receive access to information held by federal agencies without 

demonstrating a need or reason. The “right to know” standard shifted the 

burden of proof from the individual to government agencies and required

agencies to provide proper justification when denying requests for access 

to records. 

FOIA provides the public with access to government information either 

through “affirmative agency disclosure”—publishing information in the 

Federal Register or on the Internet or making it available in reading 

rooms—or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public requests 

for records are the best known type of disclosure, and require agencies to

promptly provide records in any readily producible form or format 

specified by the requester. 

Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act

prescribes nine specific categories of information that can be exempt from 

disclosure, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and certain 

confidential commercial or financial information, certain personnel and 

medical files, and certain law enforcement records.5

 When agencies deny

Background 

 4

The act has been amended several times. 

5

There are also FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held by law enforcement

agencies. 

Page 5 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

all or part of a request, the act requires that agencies notify requesters of 

the reasons for the adverse determination and grants requesters the right 

to appeal the decision. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the primary source of FOIA oversight 

and policy guidance for agencies. Within the department, the Office of 

Information and Privacy (OIP) has lead responsibility for providing 

guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. OIP issues a 

guide addressing various aspects of the act and conducts a variety of 

related training programs for personnel across the government. 

On December 14, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, 

setting forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA 

administration. The order directed agencies to provide requesters with 

courteous and appropriate service, as well as ways to learn about the 

FOIA process, the status of their requests, and the public availability of 

other agency records. The order also instructed agencies to process 

requests efficiently, achieve measurable process improvements (including 

a reduction in the backlog of overdue requests),6

 and reform programs that 

did not produce appropriate results. A major focus of the order was for 

agency plans to include specific actions to eliminate or reduce any backlog 

of overdue requests. 

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

agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their programs. 

The officers were directed to review their operations and develop 

improvement plans to ensure that administration of the act was in 

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

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

results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans. 

In April 2006, OIP posted guidance to assist federal agencies in

implementing the order’s requirements for reviews and improvement 

Executive Order Led to 

Activities Aimed at 

Improving FOIA 

Operations 

 6

“Backlog requests” refer to FOIA requests to which an agency fails to respond within the 

statutory time limit. Backlog requests are distinct from the “pending cases” that are

reported in the annual reports. The latter are FOIA cases that remain open at the end of the

reporting period. In reports GAO issued before the President issued Executive Order 13392, 

GAO used the term “backlog” to refer to these pending cases. 

Page 6 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

plans.7 The guidance suggested several potential areas that agencies might

consider when conducting their reviews, such as enhanced training, 

centralization of administration, automation of request tracking, 

automation of electronic records dissemination, and improved records 

redaction. 

In order to extend the backlog reduction efforts beyond the time frame of 

the executive order, in September 2007, OIP posted guidance to agencies 

on submitting backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 

2010.

8

 Any agency that had a request or appeal pending beyond the 

statutory time limit at the end of fiscal year 2007 was to establish backlog 

reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. In addition, in June 

2008, OIP posted guidance requiring all agencies that had not made 

progress in reducing their backlogs over the previous 2 years to prepare 

backlog reduction plans.

On December 31, 2007, the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our 

National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) was enacted. 

This law amended FOIA by, among other things, addressing the time limits 

for agencies to act on requests, requiring agencies to designate chief FOIA 

officers, requiring that agencies assign a tracking number to each request

requiring more than 10 days to process, and requiring agencies to establish 

a telephone line or Internet service that requesters could use to determine 

the status of their request. 

Although the specific procedures for handling requests vary among 

agencies, the major phases in the process are similar across the 

government: receiving the request, logging and scoping the request, 

searching for and retrieving potentially responsive records, preparing 

records for release, performing a final review, and releasing records to the 

requester. Figure 1 depicts the process, from the receipt of a request 

through the release of records. 

An Overview of the FOIA 

Process at Federal 

Agencies

 7

Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 

2006). See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm. 

8

The template for the backlog reduction goals was amended in October 2007. Department

of Justice, Modified Templates to Use When Submitting Backlog Reduction Goals for

Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010. See 

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost18.htm.

Page 7 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process 

The process begins when an agency receives (whether by mail, phone, fax,

or over the Internet) a request for federal records. A staff member logs the 

request in the agency’s tracking system, and then reviews the request to 

determine its scope, estimates fees, and provides an initial response to the 

requester. Next, the staff searches for responsive records, which may 

include searching for records at multiple locations and program offices. 

After they are located, the records are reviewed to confirm that they are 

within the scope of the request. 

The staff then prepares records by removing any nonreleasable 

information based upon the statutory exemptions—a process known as 

redaction. Once records have been prepared, the staff calculates any 

applicable fees for research time and reproduction costs.9

 After redaction 

and fee calculation, the staff submits the records for a final review, 

possibly by the agency’s general counsel. If records pass this final review,

the agency generates a response letter summarizing actions regarding the 

request and releases the records to the requester.

Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for 

specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the 

request

Receive

reques

 Create case file

Process request

• Log FOIA request

•

• Scope request

• Estimate fees

• Generate initial response

Retrieve records

• Search for responsive records

• Request records

• Review responsive records

Process records

• Make redactions

• Apply exemption codes

• Calculate fees

Approve release of records

•

•

Review redacted records

•

Generate response

App Approve rele rove releasase

Release

records

Source: GAO analysis of agency information.

 9

Fees may be waived when disclosure of the information requested is determined to be in 

the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of 

the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial 

interest of the requester. 

Page 8 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive processing, 

depending on their complexity, the volume of information involved,

whether the agency FOIA office is required to work with offices with 

relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the 

requirement for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the 

responsive material, the requirement to communicate with the requester 

about the scope of the request, and the requirement to communicate with

the requester about the fees that will be charged for fulfilling the request 

(or whether fees will be waived). 

The organizational structure of an agency’s program can affect its 

processing procedures. While some agencies centralize processing in one 

main office, others receive and process requests at the division or field 

office level. The structure influences how and where requests are received

by the agency, how an agency searches for responsive records, the 

availability of relevant subject matter experts, and how an agency 

monitors the status of requests. 

Established in 2003, DHS is responsible for leading the effort to secure the 

United States by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and protecting 

against, and responding to, threats and hazards to the nation. To 

accomplish its mission, DHS incorporated 22 separate federal agencies 

and organizations, including FEMA (formerly an independent agency) and

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly part of DOJ). Several 

of these agencies remained separate component agencies within DHS, 

while others were reorganized into new DHS components. The functions

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, were divided 

among three DHS components: CBP, ICE, and USCIS. 

FOIA processing is implemented separately within each of the major DHS 

component agencies. At the department level, the Privacy Office 

coordinates agencywide implementation by developing policy, performing 

oversight of component operations, providing training, and preparing the 

annual FOIA report. The Privacy Office also processes requests related to 

DHS headquarters operations. However, all other processing of requests is 

handled by agency components, which staff and operate their own offices. 

FOIA officers within these components are responsible for managing and 

implementing their respective operations, as well as defining their 

administrative structures. 

The scale and performance of FOIA processing vary across the 

department. The components with the largest reported number of pending

The DHS FOIA Program Is 

Largely Decentralized 

Page 9 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

cases at the end of fiscal year 2007 included CBP, FEMA, ICE, TSA, USCIS, 

USSS, and the United States Coast Guard. These components are also 

among those to have received and processed the largest number of 

requests in fiscal year 2007. 

In response to Executive Order 13392, DHS and its major components 

have taken steps to enhance the department’s program. DHS developed an 

improvement plan that included goals focused on eliminating its backlog 

of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and 

deploying advanced technology. In addition, the DHS Privacy Office 

initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight 

of individual components, such as developing a departmentwide 

handbook, completing file reviews at each component, monitoring 

monthly data processing statistics, and instituting training for affected 

employees. As a result, several of the components have reported 

decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. Specifically, three 

components reported achieving large reductions in their backlogs. 

In January 2007, DHS submitted an improvement plan that focused on 

eliminating the backlog of overdue requests, enhancing education and 

training, and implementing technological advancements. In order to 

formulate its plan and specific goals, DHS surveyed each component and 

office on specific issues relating to FOIA operations, such as staffing 

levels, electronic processing capabilities, training opportunities and 

requirements, and impediments other than staffing that contribute to 

backlogs. 

To reduce its backlog, DHS established goals that included hiring 

additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at USCIS, 

meeting with an important requester group (the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association) to discuss file processing and customer service 

enhancements, and establishing a monitoring program under which all 

components submitted weekly and monthly data to the Chief FOIA 

Officer. 

Goals related to education and training included establishing a renewed 

emphasis on the importance of FOIA and instituting semiannual FOIA 

officer meetings; they also required components and offices to provide all

employees with information about their obligations and all professional 

staff who spend more than half of their time implementing the act to take 

annual training offered by DOJ’s OIP. 

DHS Has Taken 

Several Key Steps to 

Enhance Its FOIA 

Program 

The DHS Improvement 

Plan Outlined Goals for 

Eliminating Backlog and 

Improving Training and 

Technology 

Page 10 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

Lastly, goals for technological improvements included identifying a Webbased case management software application with electronic tracking

capabilities, setting a recommended departmentwide standard for 

processing software, requiring all component offices to have a Web site or

a link to the departmental FOIA Web site from their component home 

page, and increasing proactive disclosure of documents on component and 

office Web sites to allow public access to records without submitting a 

formal request. 

In response to the executive order and to elevate the importance of the act 

at the department level, the Chief FOIA Officer established a new position 

of Deputy Chief FOIA Officer within the DHS Privacy Office.10 This 

position was established to, among other things, assure program oversight 

over all of the components. 

The Privacy Office initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance 

and provide oversight to individual components. For example, the office 

developed a handbook for use departmentwide. The document, which is 

undergoing internal review, establishes policies and procedures that each 

component must follow. In addition, the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer and 

the Associate Director of Disclosure Policy and FOIA Program 

Development visited each component for an informal file review. They 

reviewed select cases at each component in order to ensure compliance 

with department policies and identify any processing problems. If a 

problem was detected, they revisited those components to help develop a 

plan of action to remedy the problem. 

In an effort to reduce backlog, the DHS improvement plan required all 

components to submit monthly data reports. These reports included the 

number of open cases, time ranges of the open cases, the date of the oldest 

request, the number of staff, and the number of requests received and

processed that month. After receiving the reports, the Deputy Chief FOIA 

Officer was to notify each component via e-mail regarding their progress 

against backlog goals set in response to DOJ guidance. 

Lastly, to ensure compliance with department policies, the Privacy Office 

has set requirements for training. The DHS improvement plan stated that 

The DHS Privacy Office 

Has Taken Steps to 

Improve Departmental 

Oversight of Its FOIA 

Operations 

 10The Chief Privacy Officer for DHS serves as the Chief FOIA Officer for the department 

and has agencywide policy responsibility for efficient and appropriate FOIA compliance.

Page 11 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

education and training would ensure a consistent interpretation of 

common aspects of the administrative process. Accordingly, it required 

that all components make available “FOIA 101” training for employees 

with FOIA-related duties. The training includes an overview of the history 

of the act, DHS’s FOIA organization chart, information on the life cycle of

a request, staff responsibilities, and information on exemptions. In 

addition, all staff that spent more than 50 percent of their work time on 

FOIA were required to take annual training offered by DOJ’s OIP or an 

equivalent. 

Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392 

and DHS’s improvement plan, three of the seven major components have

reported progress in decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. As of 

October 17, 2008, the overall departmental backlog has been reduced 

about 24 percent since September 2006. Factors contributing to this 

reduction include enhanced oversight by the Privacy Office and program 

modifications instituted by individual components, such as centralizing 

operations, hiring additional personnel, and technology improvements. 

Table 1 shows the reported overall DHS reduction in overdue requests and 

the changes in overdue requests experienced by each of its major 

components. 

Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its Major Components

Several DHS Components 

Have Reported Reductions 

in Their Backlogs of 

Overdue Requests as a 

Result of Departmental 

Improvement Efforts 

Number of overdue requests as of Fall/rise 

DHS 

component September 15, 2006 October 17, 2008 Number Percentage

DHS total 99,211 75,163 -24,048 -24.2%

ICE 7,346 16 -7,330 -99.8

USCIS 89,124 70,175 -18,949 -21.3

USSS 730 560 -170 -23.3

Coast Guarda906 1,152 +246 +27.2

FEMA 236 619 +383 +162.3

CBP 524 2,198 +1,674 +319.5

TSA 45 321 +276 +613.3

All other 

components 300 122 -178 -59.3

Source: GAO analysis of self-reported agency data. 

a

Coast Guard was unable to report its number of overdue requests for September 2006; monthly 

numbers used are from August 2006 and represent headquarters’ overdue cases only. 

Page 12 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

USCIS has reported a substantial reduction in its backlog. Despite having 

one of the highest backlogs within the department and the federal 

government, it has reduced its backlog by 18,949 requests (about 21 

percent) since September 2006. Component officials attributed the 

reduction to the centralization of their FOIA program, hiring of additional

staff, and the elimination of 23,179 requests whose requesters did not have 

continued interest in obtaining the information. In October 2007, USCIS 

completed a transition from 50 decentralized FOIA offices to a single 

centralized office. The centralization enabled them to maximize their 

resources and focus on reducing their backlog of overdue requests. The 

component has also hired 10 additional staff since the centralization. In 

addition, in July 2008, USCIS awarded a backlog reduction contract 

intended to eliminate its backlog within 15 to 18 months from the award of 

the contract. The contract is to provide 74 staff that will be tasked to 

process the oldest requests until the entire backlog is exhausted. 

Likewise, ICE has also reported a considerable reduction in its backlog of

overdue requests. According to agency officials, an almost 100 percent 

reduction has been achieved since September 2006, reducing the number 

of overdue requests by about 7,300. The component took a variety of 

actions, including centralizing its program and implementing a new 

electronic tracking system. The FOIA Officer stated that centralization of 

the program allowed for greater consistency in processing procedures and 

the use of technology. In addition, ICE was able to eliminate 

approximately 1,200 overdue requests by determining that the requesters 

were no longer interested in them. 

As part of its operational improvements in FOIA processing, DHS officials 

reported that they had improved the way the department handles requests

relating to Alien-File (A-File) records,11 which are processed by USCIS and

ICE. Both components experienced a large reduction of their backlogs by

streamlining the approach used for processing these requests. Previously,

a major hurdle these components faced was the sharing of the existing 55 

million hardcopy A-Files. Because the A-Files contain both benefit and

enforcement documents, an individual file may be in the possession of 

either component at any given time. When either one of the components 

received a request for the contents of a file, that component had to locate

 11For more information on A-Files, see GAO, Immigration Benefits: Additional Efforts

Needed to Help Ensure Alien Files Are Located when Needed, GAO-07-85 (Washington,

D.C.: Oct. 27, 2006). 

Page 13 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

the file and determine whether it should have responsibility for processing 

the request. After November 2006, the ownership of all A-Files was 

transferred to USCIS. In order to facilitate faster processing, ICE provided 

USCIS with a processing guide containing the policies, procedures, and 

background information necessary to enable USCIS to process A-File 

requests on behalf of ICE. This process eliminated the need to refer 

records to ICE for review and determination of releasability, which could 

result in unnecessary delays. 

USSS reported a 23 percent reduction in its backlog of overdue requests 

since September 2006, reducing the number of overdue requests by 170.

Officials stated that this reduction was mainly due to the addition of staff 

supporting the FOIA mission and the creation of a task force, consisting of

employees from each directorate, to focus on closing overdue requests 

over a 3-month span. 

DHS components and other federal agencies have identified key practices

they have adopted to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their 

request-processing operations. These key practices include internal 

monitoring and oversight to help reduce component backlogs, specialized 

training within components, providing requesters with online access to 

information concerning the status of their requests, releasing records in an

electronic format, and the use of electronic redaction. 

Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components, 

implementing an internal monitoring and oversight process can help 

agencies better track their processing efficiency and thus reduce their 

backlogs of requests. These organizations have found that the ability to

monitor the status of incoming requests can greatly enhance their ability 

to meet the statutory time limit to respond to them because it can help 

reduce the amount of time needed to determine the location of responsive 

records and retrieve them for processing. Close monitoring helps ensure 

that requests and their associated records do not languish unattended at 

any given step in the process. 

DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has reported that it 

implemented an oversight and monitoring process for its FOIA program. It 

operates a centralized program, where all requests are received at the 

main office. Responsive records may be located at any one of the 54 

immigration courts throughout the United States. According to DOJ 

officials, in order to facilitate a timely and efficient response from the 

Opportunities Exist 

for DHS to Further 

Improve FOIA 

Processing within Its 

Components 

Internal Monitoring and 

Oversight Could Help 

Reduce DHS Components’ 

Backlogs 

Page 14 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

immigration courts, at the end of each day, the main office automatically 

generates and sends a report to any immigration court that has been 

identified as possessing responsive records for an outstanding request. 

The officials stated that by closely monitoring those courts that were slow 

in sending responsive records, it has been able to obtain records in a more 

timely manner. 

Likewise, within DHS, three of the seven major DHS components have 

reported implementing mechanisms for monitoring the processing of 

information requests. For example, USCIS operates a centralized FOIA 

program from the National Records Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. All 

requests are received at the center and imported into an electronic 

tracking system. The system allows staff to track the status and 

whereabouts of each request from receipt until it has been closed. In 

addition, the component uses bar codes to associate records with a 

physical location. As a result, files can be rapidly located at the center or 

at any other location. The chief program official stated that the use of the 

bar codes greatly sped up the process of locating responsive records for 

processing. In these cases, staff can identify the location of records using 

the bar code and contact the appropriate office to obtain copies for 

processing. In addition, USCIS has staff dedicated to the continual 

monitoring of outstanding records. Each month, USCIS sends reports to 

its field sites and other components that have outstanding records in order 

to expedite the process. According to program officials, these monitoring 

and oversight mechanisms have contributed to the reduction of the 

backlog of overdue requests. 

ICE officials also reported that they have implemented monitoring and 

oversight mechanisms. The component operates a centralized program, 

where all of the requests are received at the main office. After a request is 

received, staff input it into a tracking system, and then it is assigned to the 

appropriate office for processing. The tracking system allows staff to 

obtain key information about the request, such as the responsible office, 

the date by which the records need to be received at the main office, and if 

applicable, the number of days by which the request is overdue. In 

addition, the program director generates a weekly report that identifies 

any requests that have not been responded to within the allotted time and 

sends messages to notify program offices of their overdue responses. In 

order to facilitate timely and efficient retrieval of records, program offices 

have the ability to provide their responses via e-mail to the main office. 

The program director stated that this monitoring process and the ability of 

program offices to send responsive records by e-mail have greatly 

Page 15 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

improved the timeliness of responses to information requests and reduced

the backlog of overdue requests. 

In technical comments on a draft of this report, USSS stated that it has a 

system for tracking due dates for incoming requests and also has the 

ability to generate reports to monitor overdue requests to ensure timely 

responses. 

In contrast to these examples, the other major components have not yet

implemented comparable monitoring and oversight mechanisms. For 

example, although CBP, FEMA, and TSA operate centralized FOIA 

programs where all requests are received or tracked at one location, none

currently has a mechanism for obtaining responsive records from field 

offices expeditiously. 

Lastly, because the Coast Guard operates its program in a decentralized 

fashion—each of its 1,300 units is able to directly receive and respond to 

requests—it has limited ability to monitor the status of individual requests 

or whether responsive records have been located and retrieved. The Chief 

of the Office of Information Management estimated that between twothirds and three-fourths of all requests are received and answered in field 

offices. The Coast Guard currently does not have an oversight mechanism 

to monitor the timeliness of processing at its individual units.

Given the success of using monitoring and oversight processes at DOJ and 

two DHS components, the department may be able to improve 

responsiveness to requests and reduce backlogs at other major 

components by establishing mechanisms to efficiently monitor and 

oversee internal processing of information requests within those 

components. 

Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components, 

component-specific training—which goes beyond general training to 

address processing details that are unique within each of the 

components—can help ensure consistent administration of the FOIA 

process within each component. The department improvement plan 

acknowledges that specialized training is essential for processing 

professionals. Further, DOJ’s OIP highlighted the need for enhanced 

training in its guidance on activities required by Executive Order 13392. 

The guidance states that the issuance of Executive Order 13392 is a good

occasion for agencies to, among other things, consider whether they are

conducting their own training sessions with sufficient regularity. 

Component-Specific 

Training Could Help 

Enhance the Efficiency of 

FOIA Processing 

Page 16 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

While certain basic aspects of FOIA implementation are the same 

throughout a large department such as DHS, other aspects of the process 

can vary in significant ways across the department’s components. For 

example, each component possesses different types of records; some 

agencies may have primarily first-party records (such as USCIS’s A-Files), 

while others may have more records relating to investigations (such as the 

Coast Guard’s Marine Investigations). Further, component agencies are 

likely to utilize specific exemptions that directly relate to the records they

possess. For example, some may frequently use an exemption that focuses

on an agency’s internal personnel rules and practices, while others may 

more often use an exemption for information compiled for law 

enforcement purposes. 

Two component agencies within DOJ reported utilizing componentspecific training for their staff to enhance the efficiency of their processing 

information requests. Specifically, according to agency officials, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides its new staff with entrylevel, basic, and advanced training programs. The entry-level staff undergo

a 6-week training regimen that includes an overview of the type of records 

at the FBI, how to scope requests and search for records, and how to use 

the bureau’s tracking system. After the staff complete the entry-level

training, they are required to take one of two additional training classes, 

depending on their job responsibilities. Advanced training is also available 

on litigation support and prepublication review. FBI officials stated that, in

their opinion, the training program was responsible for the retention of 

qualified staff because the progression and challenges presented by the 

various levels of training allowed staff to develop their FOIA expertise. 

Likewise, DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys offers a 

specialized training conference for FOIA staff at each of the U.S. Attorney 

offices. The training conference includes explanations of FOIA 

exemptions and how they are used, a discussion of the intake process, 

examples of forms used in the process, and a discussion of the FOIA 

contacts’ role. In addition, officials stated that the Executive Office 

records its training conference and makes it available online for staff to 

view. Each new field office employee is required to take the training. 

Five components within DHS have similarly implemented in-house, 

component-specific FOIA training for their staff: 

• USCIS provides newly hired staff with a mandatory training program that 

includes guidance tailored to its program. In a report written in response 

to the Executive Order, the USCIS’s Ombudsman recognized that frequent 

Page 17 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

and useful training for new and existing staff had been lacking and 

recommended that a training program be developed and implemented for 

all staff to ensure effective compliance. In response to the 

recommendation, USCIS developed a mandatory in-house training 

program that includes hands-on modules for processing and approving 

information requests. The new program included a focus on rules 

regarding exemptions as applied to USCIS, analysis of typical case studies,

and procedures for handling documents from other components, such as 

ICE. The Chief of the USCIS FOIA Program stated that staff who had 

participated in the new training program appeared more prepared to 

respond to requests, particularly regarding the application of exemptions. 

• The Coast Guard provides an annual specialized training seminar to all 

FOIA Coordinators and personnel who process requests. The training 

includes a description of records, good record management practices, 

overview of exemptions, multiunit responses, and search standards. 

• ICE hosts a specialized “virtual-university” training module, which 

includes information on how to process a request, what files are covered 

by FOIA, and what may be withheld from disclosure under an exemption.

• TSA offers a specialized online training module, which describes typical

types of requested records and how to process a request. 

• CBP provides an 8-hour training class several times a year where staff are 

introduced to the procedures involved in responding to a request in a 

timely manner, how to create a case file, how to conduct an adequate 

search for records that are responsive to the request, and how to employ 

the nine exemptions for CBP records. Additionally, they also provide 

tailored training sessions to offices that handle certain specialized records. 

In contrast, two major DHS components do not make specialized, 

component-specific training available to their staff. USSS and FEMA 

provide only on-the-job training or “generic” training offered by outside 

contractors. For example, USSS provides on-the-job training and 

shadowing and mentoring programs for its staff, who are required to 

attend outside training, such as the DOJ OIP training, American Society of

Access Professionals conferences, and classes at the United States 

Department of Agriculture Graduate School. 

While generic training offered by outside professionals is valuable, 

component-specific training can better ensure compliance with 

component-specific policies and procedures and greater consistency in the 

application of exemptions. Also, offering this specialized training to new

Page 18 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

staff ensures that they are knowledgeable about policies and componentspecific practices before they begin processing requests, which can yield 

faster processing times and more accurate and consistent processing. 

USSS and FEMA may have opportunities to enhance the consistency and 

accuracy of their processing by developing and implementing specialized

training programs for their staff. 

Based on experience at a major DHS component, providing requesters 

with online access to information concerning the status of their requests 

can contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity. 

According to officials at USCIS, not only does an online status-check 

service provide requesters with instant access to information, it also 

reduces the need to divert staff resources away from request processing to 

respond to telephone status inquiries. 

Actions at USCIS have shown that productivity and efficiency can be

enhanced by implementing an online status-check service. According to 

component officials, since it was initiated in May 2008, the USCIS service 

has contributed to improved staff productivity and provided requesters 

with faster access to status information. The system allows requesters to 

access status information by entering their unique tracking number into a 

form on USCIS’s FOIA Web site. The Web site then returns real-time status 

information extracted from the component’s tracking system. 

Agency officials reported that the service has improved the efficiency of 

their program. Since deploying the service in May 2008, USCIS reported 

experiencing a reduction of customer service phone calls received in the 

following 3 months. As reflected in table 3 below, the monthly call volume 

for the months following implementation (May through October) was less 

than during the 4 months prior to implementation (January through April). 

USCIS officials estimated that 60 percent of all FOIA-related customer 

service phone calls are status inquiries. 

Providing Request Status 

Information Online Could 

Enhance Staff Productivity 

and Customer Service at 

DHS Components 

Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume 

Month (2008) January February March April May June July August September October

Number of customer 

service calls received 2,857 2,636 2,619 2,803 2,677 2,554 2,449 2,301 2,318 2,473

Source: Self-reported agency data. 

The Director of the National Records Center stated that the online statuscheck service, by reducing the number of customer service calls, has also 

Page 19 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

allowed staff to spend more time on other duties, such as processing 

requests. Before USCIS deployed the service, requesters seeking 

information about their requests needed to call the service center and 

speak directly with staff. 

Like USCIS, ICE has also developed and implemented an online statuscheck service. Deployed in December 2008, it allows requesters to query 

the tracking system regarding the status of their requests by filling out a 

form on the agency’s Web site. ICE’s FOIA Officer described the online 

status-check service as part of an effort to enhance customer service and

reduce the number of status request phone calls ICE receives. At the time 

of our review, the ICE service had not been in operation long enough for 

data to be collected on the benefits it has yielded.

In contrast to USCIS and ICE, the other five major DHS components have 

not yet deployed online status-check services. In order for agency 

components to provide an online status-check capability, they must 

maintain tracking systems that capture status information for all requests

and can make it available for online queries. Three of the five components 

operate comprehensive tracking systems but do not provide the service.

The other two neither provide an online service nor possess a sufficiently 

comprehensive tracking system to support one. 

USSS is an example of a component that has not deployed an online 

status-check service, even though it operates a comprehensive tracking 

system. The agency instructs requesters who are seeking status 

information to call the FOIA service center or submit their request’s 

unique tracking number through its Web site. Once a status inquiry is 

received, staff search the tracking system to provide requesters with status 

information. Agency officials stated that, in response to Executive Order 

13392, USSS is considering the feasibility of deploying an online status 

system. By deploying such a service, the component may be able to reduce 

the staff resources it currently devotes to responding to status inquiries. 

Like USSS, FEMA does not provide an online service, despite operating a 

comprehensive tracking system. Currently, when requesters call or e-mail 

FEMA’s central office seeking status information, staff must contact the 

relevant program offices to determine the status of the request and relay 

that information to the requester. Agency officials stated that responding 

to requester calls to its FOIA Helpline was a full-time job, and that 

transitioning to an online status service would be cost-effective and 

efficient for both the agency and requesters. Although agency officials 

stated that FEMA is developing a database feature to allow requesters to 

Page 20 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

view status information through its FOIA Web site, they did not provide an 

estimate of when the service would be available. Until the online status 

service is made available, FEMA will likely continue to devote significant 

staff resources to responding to status inquiries. 

TSA also continues to use staff to manually search its tracking system to 

determine a request’s status. TSA officials stated that, for technical 

reasons, it would not be feasible to develop an online status service based 

on its current comprehensive tracking system. Instead, staff reply to 

requester inquiries in the same format (e-mail or phone) that the inquiry 

was received, typically within 24 to 48 hours. Agency officials also stated 

that the FOIA office is exploring adopting other case management 

software applications that could support an online status service. If TSA 

ultimately develops such a capability, it might be able to reduce the staff

resources devoted to responding to status inquiries. 

Currently, the FOIA tracking systems at the Coast Guard and CBP are not 

sufficiently comprehensive to support an online status service. The Coast

Guard operates separate tracking systems for each of its 1,300 field 

offices. Requesters seeking the status of their requests must inquire 

directly with the Coast Guard field office responsible for processing the 

request. Similarly, CBP cannot yet provide a component-wide online status

service because its tracking system does not capture current status 

information for commercial or financial requests processed by offices or 

ports other than its central office. For such requests, CBP’s tracking 

system, which is manually updated each month, records when the request 

was received and to which office or port it was referred. The tracking 

system is also updated when the office or port notifies the central office 

that the request was processed. CBP officials stated that they had not 

deployed an online service for noncommercial and nonfinancial requests 

because CBP does not provide outside entities access to its tracking 

system. As a result, requesters seeking status information for 

noncommercial or nonfinancial requests, which account for approximately 

95 percent of CBP’s requests, must phone their inquiry to personnel at 

CBP’s central office. By providing an online status check service, the

Coast Guard and CBP could improve customer service and reduce staff 

resources devoted to responding to status inquiries. 

Page 21 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

The format (paper or electronic) on which records are released to 

requesters can affect operating expenditures and processing efficiency. 

Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components, 

using electronic dissemination to respond to “large” requests (requests 

involving many document pages) can decrease the amount of resources 

expended on paper, toner, and postage. In such cases, agency officials 

report that the cost of copying responsive records onto a CD and mailing 

the CD to the requester is generally significantly less than printing and 

mailing the information on paper. 

Releasing Records for 

Large Requests in an 

Electronic Format Could 

Provide Cost Savings and 

Improve Efficiency 

DOJ has used electronic dissemination to improve the efficiency of its 

processing. For example, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has 

used electronic dissemination to streamline its FOIA process. Prior to 

adopting a policy of providing records on CD by default, the Executive 

Office’s staff often engaged in lengthy negotiations with requesters over 

reproduction fees. Agency officials cited the transition to releasing records 

on CD as a major factor in reducing the agency’s backlog because it 

reduced the need for staff to spend time negotiating over fees with 

requesters. 

Likewise, three of DHS’s seven major components have used electronic 

dissemination to reduce operating costs when responding to large 

requests: 

• USCIS officials reported that they respond to approximately 60 percent of 

requests by mailing electronic copies of records on CD, accounting for 80 

percent of the total number of released pages. The remaining 40 percent of

requests are released on paper, either because the request is less than 15 

pages or because the requester specifically requests a paper format. 

Although they have not documented the costs of providing responsive 

records on CD, USCIS officials estimated that electronic dissemination 

had reduced their paper and toner costs by half. 

• ICE also has a policy of releasing records on CD, except when a requester 

specifies paper. ICE’s FOIA Information System Security Officer estimated 

that electronic dissemination had reduced the office’s paper consumption 

by almost 90 percent. 

• FEMA also has a policy of using electronic dissemination (on CD) for large 

requests. 

DHS’s four remaining major components release records on paper, unless 

otherwise specified by the requester:

Page 22 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

• CBP officials stated that they were focusing their efforts on hiring staff to 

process requests and they would consider process enhancements, such as 

electronic dissemination, once they achieved full staffing. 

• Coast Guard officials stated that they had not adopted a policy of 

defaulting to an electronic format because they had not received guidance 

from DHS on this subject and because it may be less expensive for them to 

reproduce records on paper. 

• TSA officials stated that their FOIA office releases records on paper based

on its understanding that this is the preference of requesters, and only 

provides records in electronic format when specifically requested. 

• USSS officials stated that the agency considered adopting a policy of 

releasing records electronically or on CD when FOIA requesters did not 

specify a preference for paper, but decided not to adopt such a policy out 

of deference to requesters who do not have the means or capability to 

access information stored electronically. 

While it may be less expensive to respond to small requests in a paper 

format, it can be more economical to respond to large requests in an 

electronic format. Adopting a release policy that more fully incorporates 

electronic means of dissemination when it is economically advisable could 

reduce the operational costs of processing requests, as well as the staff 

resources diverted to negotiating the release format with requesters. 

Rapidly and accurately removing (redacting) nonreleasable data from 

requested records is an integral part of responding to FOIA requests in a 

timely manner. DOJ’s Implementation Guidance notes that electronic 

redaction software can enable agencies to process requests more 

efficiently than through manual redaction.12 Based on actions taken at DOJ 

and the Department of State, as well as within several DHS components, 

the use of electronic redaction can allow for more timely responses to 

requests. Electronic redaction involves using software to eliminate 

nonreleasable data from electronic files. The software allows staff to 

quickly select text or images to be removed and annotate the text with the 

reasons (applicable exemptions) for the redactions. Manual redaction is 

Use of Electronic 

Redaction Could Allow 

Efficient Processing of 

Requests 

 12Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 

2006). See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm. 

Page 23 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

more labor-intensive, typically involving photocopying or scanning a 

document after removing nonreleasable information by physically cutting, 

covering, or marking each page. 

Officials at DOJ and the Department of State reported that electronic 

redaction had led to improvements in the efficiency of their operations for 

processing information requests. FBI officials stated that electronic 

redaction had enabled the agency to significantly reduce staff while 

doubling productivity. Since 2002, the use of automation, including 

electronic redaction, has allowed the FBI to reduce staff levels from 630 to 

230 employees, while reducing its number of pending requests from 2,500 

to 1,800. Also, the rate of processing by individual staff was reported to 

have increased from 500 pages to 1,000 pages per month. Likewise, Bureau 

of Prisons officials estimated that electronic redaction had reduced 

redaction time by 10 percent. The State Department’s Director of 

Information Programs and Services likewise credited electronic redaction

with improving efficiency and also noted that it resulted in a more 

professional product. 

Officials from several DHS components also reported having improved the 

efficiency or quality of their request processing by adopting electronic 

redaction: 

• CBP officials stated that since November 25, 2008, all of the permanent 

FOIA staff in the central office have used electronic redaction software to 

process records. They estimated that 90 to 95 percent of records are 

redacted electronically.

• USCIS officials reported that they use electronic redaction exclusively. A 

senior official estimated that, since adopting electronic redaction in 1998, 

the agency had significantly increased the efficiency of the its redaction 

process by eliminating the need to manually cut or mark records. 

• ICE’s FOIA Officer stated that electronic redaction had resulted in 

significant time-savings over previous manual redaction processes. 

• According to USSS officials, approximately 70 to 75 percent of the records 

they process are redacted electronically. USSS officials credit electronic 

redaction with increasing productivity, reducing response time frames, 

and improving customer service. The remaining 25 to 30 percent of USSS 

records are processed manually because of security requirements 

prohibiting the electronic redaction of classified records. 

Page 24 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

• FEMA officials reported that they use electronic redaction to respond to 

approximately 90 percent of their requests. FEMA officials stated that 

implementing electronic redaction has enabled faster processing and a 

more professional and consistent product for requesters. FEMA still 

manually processes 10 percent of its records, either because the records 

are classified or because they have already been partially manually 

redacted. 

In contrast, the Coast Guard and TSA do not use electronic redaction 

when responding to the majority of their requests: 

• Coast Guard officials estimated that 7 percent of their FOIA staff have

access to electronic redaction software, and approximately 70 percent of 

the records processed by those with access are redacted electronically. 

Nevertheless, Coast Guard officials stated that electronic redaction had

reduced processing time for large volume records and reduced the 

likelihood of improperly releasing information. Coast Guard officials 

added that funding had been requested for an electronic system located at 

all major FOIA processing centers which would enable online redactions.

• Although all of TSA’s FOIA staff members have access to electronic 

redaction software, only 10 percent of records are redacted electronically.

Agency officials stated that TSA had been unable to adopt electronic 

redaction more broadly because of difficulties integrating the redaction 

software with TSA’s file sharing application. The officials added that TSA 

is considering other software solutions that might allow broader adoption 

of electronic redaction. 

By more broadly adopting electronic redaction, the Coast Guard and TSA 

have opportunities to improve the efficiency of their operations. 

While DHS has made advances in ensuring compliance and oversight 

among its components, such as developing a departmentwide handbook 

and monitoring monthly data processing statistics, opportunities exist for 

further improvements. Practices in place at DOJ and the Department of 

State, and within a number of DHS’s own component agencies, have 

demonstrated that a variety of enhancements are possible. However, these

key practices have not yet been implemented consistently across the 

department. Such practices include monitoring and oversight of FOIA 

processing, component-specific training, providing online status 

information, releasing records in electronic format, and using electronic 

redaction. By consistently implementing these practices across all major 

departmental components, DHS is likely to be able to further reduce its 

Conclusions 

Page 25 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer service, and respond to 

FOIA requests in a more timely fashion. 

To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the department’s 

FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security take the following five actions: 

• Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security 

Administration, and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing 

monitoring and oversight mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of 

overdue requests. 

• Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency

and United States Secret Service to consider developing and implementing 

specialized training programs for their staff. 

• Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security 

Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States Secret 

Service to consider providing requesters with an online mechanism to 

obtain information about the status of their requests. 

• Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Transportation Security Administration, United States Secret Service, and

United States Coast Guard to consider establishing a policy of primarily 

disseminating records to requesters in an electronic format when large

numbers of pages are involved. 

• Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security Administration 

and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the use of electronic 

redaction when processing requests.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ, and the Department of 

State for review and comment. In response, we received written comments 

from the Director of DHS’s GAO/OIG Liaison Office, which are reprinted in 

appendix II. Officials from DOJ and the Department of State indicated that 

they had no comments on the draft report. 

In his written comments, the Director stated that DHS concurred with our 

assessment and recommendations and stated that the department will use 

the report to ensure improvement to its FOIA program in the future. In 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 26 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
 

addition, DHS provided information on actions certain components are 

taking to address our recommendations. DHS also provided technical 

comments by e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and interested 

congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

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

Gregory C. Wilshusen 

listed in appendix III. 

Director, Information Security Issues 

Page 27 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-09-260

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees on 

Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of the Department 

of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

program. Our specific objectives were to determine (1) what key steps 

DHS has taken to improve its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities, if 

any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA 

operations across the department. 

To determine the key steps DHS has taken to improve its program, we 

reviewed the goals contained in the DHS improvement plan, the reported

progress made on these goals from the DHS annual FOIA reports, and 

documentation regarding initiatives aimed at improving departmental 

operations. To corroborate information obtained from the DHS Privacy 

Office about the department’s actions and reported reductions in backlog, 

we obtained and analyzed supporting information from major 

departmental components by observing processing operations and 

obtaining documentation of improvement initiatives. We focused our work 

on the seven agency components that reported the largest number of 

pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration, 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United 

States Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. We obtained and 

analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of these 

components to assess DHS’s performance. We also conducted site visits at 

ICE and USCIS, which account for the majority of requests processed at

DHS, to analyze information regarding their processes and the 

implementation of improvement initiatives. Further, we interviewed DHS 

officials regarding the impact of organizational, technological, and 

managerial actions on achieving departmental improvement plan goals. 

To determine what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and costeffectiveness of FOIA operations across the department, we reviewed 

DHS-specific FOIA policies and procedures, including documentation 

regarding program structure, processes, and resources, to determine what 

practices were in place throughout the department. We also reviewed 

laws, regulations, and guidance aimed at improving FOIA operations 

across the government, including Executive Order 13392, the Department 

of Justice’s (DOJ) guidance on implementing Executive Order 13392, and 

the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 

2007. We then reviewed similar documentation from DOJ and the 

Department of State—two agencies with types of information similar to 

DHS—and compared their programs to DHS operations to identify key 

DHS FOIA Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

practices that could be implemented more widely in DHS to make 

improvements in efficiency and customer service. Specifically, within DOJ, 

we analyzed key practices of FOIA programs at the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys—the four 

components that reported the largest number of pending cases at the end

of fiscal year 2007—by discussing practices with officials, analyzing 

documentation, and observing processing activities firsthand to determine 

the impact they had on program efficiency. To supplement information on 

key practices obtained from DOJ and the Department of State, we 

analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of the seven

major component agencies within DHS to determine which processes and 

improvement initiatives they had implemented and the extent to which 

these actions had produced tangible benefits. For components that had 

not implemented key practices, we obtained and analyzed information 

about the reasons they had not done so. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to January 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 29 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

of Homeland Security 

Page 30 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 31 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 32 GAO-09-260 DHS FOIA Program
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 33 GAO-09-260

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Gregory C. Wilshusen, (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this report 

were made by John de Ferrari, Assistant Director; Marisol Cruz; Richard J. 

Hagerman; and Lee McCracken. 

DHS FOIA Program

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311100) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper