Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans
Published: 2007-03-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies must provide access to their information, enabling the public to learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure proper implementation, the act requires that agencies report annually to the Attorney General, giving specific information about their FOIA operations, such as numbers of requests received and processed and median processing times. Also, a recent Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to improve FOIA operations, including decreasing backlog. For this study, GAO was asked to examine the status and trends of FOIA processing at 25 major agencies as reflected in annual reports, as well as the extent to which improvement plans contain the elements emphasized by the Executive Order. To do so, GAO analyzed the 25 agencies' annual reports and improvement plans.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Based on data in annual reports from 2002 to 2005, the public continued to submit more requests for information from the federal government through FOIA. Despite increasing the numbers of requests processed, many agencies did not keep pace with the volume of requests that they received. As a result, the number of pending requests carried over from year to year has been steadily increasing. Agency reports also show great variations in the median times to process requests (less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at others). However, the ability to determine trends in processing times is limited by the form in which these times are reported: that is, in medians only, without averages (that is, arithmetical means) or ranges. Although medians have the advantage of providing representative numbers that are not skewed by a few outliers, it is not statistically possible to combine several medians to develop broader generalizations (as can be done with arithmetical means). This limitation on aggregating data impedes the development of broader pictures of FOIA operations, which could be useful in monitoring efforts to improve processing and reduce the increasing backlog of requests, as intended by the Executive Order. The improvement plans submitted by the 25 agencies mostly included goals and timetables addressing the four areas of improvement emphasized by the Executive Order: eliminating or reducing any backlog of FOIA requests; increasing reliance on dissemination of records that can be made available to the public without the need for a FOIA request, such as through posting on Web sites; improving communications with requesters about the status of their requests; and increasing public awareness of FOIA processing. Most of the plans (20 of 25) provided goals and timetables in all four areas; some agencies omitted goals in areas where they considered they were already strong. Although details of a few plans could be improved, all the plans focus on making measurable improvements and form a reasonable basis for carrying out the goals of the Executive Order.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies  must provide the public with access to government information, thus  enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions.  Specific requests by the public for information through the act have led to  disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the government, as  well as the identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs, and  serious health hazards.
To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that agencies  provide annual reports on their FOIA operations to the Attorney General;  these reports include information as specified in the act, such as how many  requests were received and processed in the previous fiscal year, how  many requests were pending at the end of the year, and the median times  that agencies or their components took to process requests. Since 2001,  we have provided the Congress with periodic analyses of the contents of  these annual reports.
In December 2005, the President issued an Executive Order aimed at  improving agencies’ disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.  Among other things, this order required each agency to review its FOIA  operations and develop improvement plans; by June 14, 2006, each agency  was to submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director of the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) summarizing the results of the  agency’s review and including a copy of its improvement plan. These plans  were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables, by which  the agency head is to evaluate the agency’s success in implementing the  plan.
The Executive Order directs agencies in their FOIA improvement plans to  focus on ways to  eliminate or reduce any backlog of requests;   increase reliance on public dissemination of records including through   improve communications with requesters about the status of their   increase public awareness of FOIA processing.
In July 2006, we testified before the Subcommittee on Government  Management, Finance, and Accountability, House Committee on  Government Reform, providing preliminary results of our ongoing analyses  of the 2005 annual reports as well as of the improvement plans required by  the Executive Order. This report provides the final results of our analyses.
As agreed, our objectives were to determine (1) the status of agencies’  processing of FOIA requests as reflected in their annual reports for fiscal  years 2002 through 2005, highlighting any trends in these reports since  2002, and (2) to what extent the agency FOIA improvement plans contain  the elements emphasized by the Executive Order.
To describe statistics on the processing of FOIA requests, we analyzed  annual report data for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 from 25 major  agencies (herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide). We examined  data from the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus  the Central Intelligence Agency. However, we eliminated one of the 25  agencies—the Department of Agriculture—from our analysis because one  of its major components reported that not all its data were reliable. As a  result, our statistical analysis for this report was based on data from a total  of 24 agencies’ annual reports.
To determine to what extent the agency plans contained the elements  emphasized by the order, we analyzed the plans for all 25 agencies to  determine whether they addressed each area of improvement that was  emphasized and contained goals and timetables for each. We evaluated the  versions of plans submitted as of December 15, 2006. We also reviewed the  Executive Order itself, implementing guidance issued by OMB and the  Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by Justice, and our past  work in this area. A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is provided in appendix I.
We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. We performed our work from May 2006 to  January 2007 in Washington, D.C.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and  information, on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability  in government. Before the act (originally enacted in 1966), an individual  seeking access to federal records had faced the burden of establishing a  right to examine them. FOIA established a “right to know” standard for  access, instead of a “need to know,” and shifted the burden of proof from  the individual to the government agency seeking to deny access.
FOIA provides the public with access to government information either  through “affirmative agency disclosure”—publishing information in the  Federal Register or on the Internet, or making it available in reading  rooms—or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public requests  for disclosure of records are the best known type of FOIA disclosure. Any  member of the public may request access to information held by federal  agencies, without showing a need or reason for seeking the information.
Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act  prescribes nine specific categories of information that are exempt from  disclosure: for example, trade secrets and certain privileged commercial or  financial information, certain personnel and medical files, and certain law  enforcement records or information (app. IX provides the complete list). In  denying access to material, agencies may cite these exemptions. The act  requires agencies to notify requesters of the reasons for any adverse  determination (that is, a determination not to provide records) and grants  requesters the right to appeal agency decisions to deny access.
In addition, agencies are required to meet certain time frames for making  key determinations: whether to comply with requests (20 business days  from receipt of the request), responses to appeals of adverse  determinations (20 business days from filing of the appeal), and whether to  provide expedited processing of requests (10 calendar days from receipt of  the request). The Congress did not establish a statutory deadline for  making releasable records available, but instead required agencies to make  them available promptly.
subsections: section_title: The FOIA Process at Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Although the specific details of processes for handling FOIA requests vary  among agencies, the major steps in handling a request are similar across  the government. Agencies receive requests, usually in writing (although  they may accept requests by telephone or electronically), which can come  from any organization or member of the public. Once received, the request  goes through several phases, which include initial processing, searching for  and retrieving responsive records, preparing responsive records for  release, approving the release of the records, and releasing the records to  the requester. Figure 1 is an overview of the process, from the receipt of a  request to the release of records.
During the initial processing phase, a request is logged into the agency’s  FOIA system, and a case file is started. The request is then reviewed to  determine its scope, estimate fees, and provide an initial response to the  requester (in general, this simply acknowledges receipt of the request).  After this point, the FOIA staff begins its search to retrieve responsive  records. This step may include searching for records from multiple  locations and program offices. After potentially responsive records are  located, the documents are reviewed to ensure that they are within the  scope of the request.
During the next two phases, the agency ensures that appropriate  information is to be released under the provisions of the act. First, the  agency reviews the responsive records to make any redactions based on  the statutory exemptions. Once the exemption review is complete, the final  set of responsive records is turned over to the FOIA office, which  calculates appropriate fees, if applicable. Before release, the redacted  responsive records are then given a final review, possibly by the agency’s  general counsel, and then a response letter is generated, summarizing the  agency’s actions regarding the request. Finally, the responsive records are  released to the requester.
Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for  specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the  appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive processing,  depending on their complexity, the volume of information involved, the  need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that have relevant  subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the need for a  FOIA officer to review and redact information in the responsive material,  the need to communicate with the requester about the scope of the request,  and the need to communicate with the requester about the fees that will be  charged for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be waived).
Specific details of agency processes for handling requests vary, depending  on the agency’s organizational structure and the complexity of the requests  received. While some agencies centralize processing in one main office,  other agencies have separate FOIA offices for each agency component and  field office. Agencies also vary in how they allow requests to be made.  Depending on the agency, requesters can submit requests by telephone, fax,  letter, or e-mail or through the Web. In addition, agencies may process  requests in two ways, known as “multitrack” and “single track.” Multitrack  processing involves dividing requests into two groups: (1) simple requests  requiring relatively minimal review, which are placed in one processing  track, and (2) more voluminous and complex requests, which are placed in  another track. In contrast, single-track processing does not distinguish  between simple and complex requests. With single-track processing,  agencies process all requests on a first-in/first-out basis. Agencies can also  process FOIA requests on an expedited basis when a requester has shown a  compelling need or urgency for the information.
As agencies process FOIA requests, they generally place them in one of  four possible disposition categories: grants, partial grants, denials, and “not  disclosed for other reasons.” These categories are defined as follows:  Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in full.
Partial grants: Agency decisions to withhold some records in whole or  in part, because such information was determined to fall within one or  more exemptions.
Denials: Agency decisions not to release any part of the requested  records because all information in the records is determined to be  exempt under one or more statutory exemptions.
Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release  requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than  statutory exemptions from disclosing records. The categories and  definitions of these “other” reasons for nondisclosure are shown in   table 1.
When a FOIA request is denied in full or in part, or the requested records  are not disclosed for other reasons, the requester is entitled to be told the  reason for the denial, to appeal the denial, and to challenge it in court.
section_title: The Privacy Act Also Provides Individuals with Access Rights
paragraphs: In addition to FOIA, the Privacy Act of 1974 includes provisions granting  individuals the right to gain access to and correct information about  themselves held by federal agencies. Thus the Privacy Act serves as a  second major legal basis, in addition to FOIA, for the public to use in  obtaining government information. The Privacy Act also places limitations  on agencies’ collection, disclosure, and use of personal information.
Although the two laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the  Privacy Act permit individuals to seek access to records about  themselves—known as “first-party” access. Depending on the individual  circumstances, one law may allow broader access or more extensive  procedural rights than the other, or access may be denied under one act  and allowed under the other. Consequently, the Department of Justice’s  Office of Information and Privacy issued guidance that it is “good policy for  agencies to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA requests (as well as  possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of whether the FOIA is cited in a  requester’s letter.” This guidance was intended to help ensure that  requesters receive the fullest possible response to their inquiries,  regardless of which law they cite.
In addition, Justice guidance for the annual FOIA report directs agencies to  include Privacy Act requests (that is, first-party requests) in the statistics  reported. According to the guidance, “A Privacy Act request is a request for  records concerning oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA  requests. (All requests for access to records, regardless of which law is  cited by the requester, are included in this report.)”
Although FOIA and the Privacy Act can both apply to first-party requests,  these may not always be processed in the same way as described earlier for  FOIA requests. In some cases, little review and redaction (see fig. 1) is  required, such as, for example, a request for one’s own Social Security  benefits records. In contrast, various degrees of review and redaction could  be required for other types of first-party requests: for example, files on  security background checks would need review and redaction before being  provided to the person who was the subject of the investigation.
section_title: Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation
paragraphs: OMB and the Department of Justice both have roles in the implementation  of FOIA. Under various statutes, including the Paperwork Reduction Act,  OMB exercises broad authority for coordinating and administering various  aspects of governmentwide information policy. FOIA specifically requires  OMB to issue guidelines to “provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all  agencies.” OMB issued this guidance in April 1987.
The Department of Justice oversees agencies’ compliance with FOIA and is  the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Specifically, Justice’s  requirements under the act are to  make agencies’ annual FOIA reports available through a single  electronic access point and notify the Congress as to their availability;  in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required annual  agency reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a  similar format; and  submit an annual report on FOIA litigation and the efforts undertaken  by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy has  lead responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal agencies  on FOIA issues. This office first issued guidelines for agency preparation  and submission of annual reports in the spring of 1997. It also periodically  issues additional guidance on annual reports as well as on compliance,  provides training, and maintains a counselors service to provide expert,  one-on-one assistance to agency FOIA staff. Further, the Office of  Information and Privacy also makes a variety of FOIA and Privacy Act  resources available to agencies and the public via the Justice Web site and  on-line bulletins (available at www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html).
section_title: Annual FOIA Reports Were Established by 1996 Amendments
paragraphs: In 1996, the Congress amended FOIA to provide for public access to  information in an electronic format (among other purposes). These  amendments, referred to as e-FOIA, also required that agencies submit a  report to the Attorney General on or before February 1 of each year that  covers the preceding fiscal year and includes information about agencies’  FOIA operations. The following are examples of information that is to be  included in these reports:  number of requests received, processed, and pending;  median number of days taken by the agency to process different types of   determinations made by the agency not to disclose information and the  reasons for not disclosing the information;  disposition of administrative appeals by requesters;  information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA requests; and  full-time-equivalent staffing information.
In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney General,  agencies are to make them available to the public in electronic form. The  Attorney General is required to make all agency reports available online at  a single electronic access point and report to the Congress no later than  April 1 of each year that these reports are available in electronic form.  (This electronic access point is www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_6.html.)
In 2001, in response to a congressional request, we prepared the first in a  series of reports on the implementation of the 1996 amendments to FOIA,  starting from fiscal year 1999. In these reviews, we examined the contents  of the annual reports for 25 major agencies (shown in table 2). They  include the 24 major agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act,  as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and, until 2003, the Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 2003, the creation of the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which incorporated FEMA, led  to a shift in some FOIA requests from agencies affected by the creation of  the new department, but the same major component entities are reflected  in all the years reviewed.
Our previous reports included descriptions of the status of reported FOIA  implementation, including any trends revealed by comparison with earlier  years. We noted general increases in requests received and processed, as  well as growing numbers of pending requests carried over from year to  year.
In addition, our 2001 report disclosed that data quality issues limited the  usefulness of agencies’ annual FOIA reports and that agencies had not  provided online access to all the information required by the act as  amended in 1996. We therefore recommended that the Attorney General  direct the Department of Justice to improve the reliability of data in the  agencies’ annual reports by providing guidance addressing the data quality  issues we identified and by reviewing agencies’ report data for  completeness and consistency. We further recommended that the Attorney  General direct the department to enhance the public’s access to  government records and information by encouraging agencies to make all  required materials available electronically. In response, the Department of  Justice issued supplemental guidance, addressed reporting requirements in  its training programs, and continued reviewing agencies’ annual reports for  data quality. Justice also worked with agencies to improve the quality of  data in FOIA annual reports.
section_title: Executive Order Required Agencies to Take Several Actions to Improve FOIA Operations
paragraphs: On December 14, 2005, the President issued an Executive Order setting  forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA  administration. Briefly, FOIA requesters are to receive courteous and  appropriate services, including ways to learn about the status of their  requests and the agency’s response, and agencies are to provide ways for  requesters and the public to learn about the FOIA process and publicly  available agency records (such as those on Web sites). In addition, agency  FOIA operations are to be results oriented: agencies are to process  requests efficiently, achieve measurable improvements in FOIA processing,  and reform programs that do not produce appropriate results.
To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that agency  heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their FOIA programs, and  that agencies establish Requester Service Centers and Public Liaisons to  ensure appropriate communication with requesters. The Chief FOIA  Officers were directed to conduct reviews of the agencies’ FOIA operations  and develop improvement plans to ensure that FOIA administration was in  accordance with applicable law as well as with the policy set forth in the  order. By June 2006, agencies were to submit reports that included the  results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans. The order  also instructed the Attorney General to issue guidance on implementation  of the order’s requirements for agencies to conduct reviews and develop  plans. Finally, the order instructed agencies to report on their progress in  implementing their plans and meeting milestones as part of their annual  reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and required agencies to account for  any milestones missed.
In April 2006, the Department of Justice posted guidance on  implementation of the order’s requirements for FOIA reviews and  improvement plans. This guidance suggested a number of areas of FOIA  administration that agencies might consider in conducting their reviews  and developing improvement plans. (Examples of some of these areas are  automated tracking capabilities, automated processing,  receiving/responding to requests electronically, forms of communication  with requesters, and systems for handling referrals to other agencies.) To  encourage consistency, the guidance also included a template for agencies  to use to structure the plans and to report on their reviews and plans. The  improvement plans are posted on the Justice Web site at  www.usdoj.gov/oip/agency_improvement.html.
In a July 2006 testimony, we provided preliminary results of our analyses of  the improvement plans for the 25 agencies in our review that were  submitted as of the end of June; in our testimony we focused on how the  plans addressed reducing or eliminating backlog. We testified that a  substantial number of plans did not include measurable goals and  timetables that would allow agencies to measure and evaluate the success  of their plans. Several of the plans were revised in light of our testimony, as  well as in response to feedback to agencies from the Department of Justice  in its FOIA oversight role.
section_title: Status of FOIA Processing Appears Similar to Previous Years, but Limitations in Annual Report Data Present Challenges
paragraphs: The data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 2002  to 2005 reveal a number of general trends. (Data from USDA, which were  reported in our July 2006 testimony, are omitted in what follows, because  we determined that data from a major USDA component were not reliable.)  For example, the public continued to submit more requests for information  from the federal government through FOIA, but many agencies, despite  increasing the numbers of requests processed, did not keep pace with this  increased volume. As a result, the number of pending requests carried over  from year to year has been steadily increasing. However, our ability to  make generalizations about processing time is limited by the type of  statistic reported (that is, the median). Taking steps to improve the  accuracy and form of annual report data could provide more insight into  FOIA processing.
subsections: section_title: Not All Data from USDA’s Farm Service Agency Are Reliable, but Its Improvement Plan Provides Opportunity to Address This Weakness
paragraphs: We omitted data from USDA’s annual FOIA report because we determined  that not all these data were reliable. Although some USDA components  expressed confidence in their data, one component, the Farm Service  Agency, did not. According to this agency’s FOIA Officer, portions of the  agency’s data in annual reports were not accurate or complete. This is a  significant deficiency, because the Farm Service Agency reportedly  processes over 80 percent of the department’s total FOIA requests.  Currently, FOIA processing for the Farm Service Agency is highly  decentralized, taking place in staff offices in Washington, D.C., and Kansas  City, 50 state offices, and about 2,350 county offices. The agency FOIA  officer told us that she questioned the completeness and accuracy of data  supplied by the county offices. This official stated that some of the field  office data supplied for the annual report were clearly wrong, leading her  to question the systems used to record workload data at field offices and  the field office staff’s understanding of FOIA requirements. She attributed  this condition to the agency’s decentralized organization and to lack of  management attention, resources, and training. Lacking accurate data  hinders the Farm Service Agency from effectively monitoring and  managing its FOIA program.
The Executive Order’s requirement to develop an improvement plan  provides an opportunity for the Farm Service Agency to address its data  reliability problems. More specifically, Justice’s guidance on implementing  the Executive Order refers to the need for agencies to explore  improvements in their monitoring and tracking systems and staff training.  USDA has developed an improvement plan that includes activities to  improve FOIA processing at the Farm Service Agency that are relevant to  the issues raised by the Farm Service Agency’s FOIA Officer, including both  automation and training. The plan sets goals for ensuring that all agency  employees who process or retrieve responsive records are trained in the  necessary FOIA duties, as well as for determining the type of automated  tracking to be implemented. According to the plan, an electronic tracking  system is needed to track requests, handle public inquiries regarding  request status, and prepare a more accurate annual FOIA report. In  addition, the Farm Service Agency plans to determine the benefit of  increased centralization of FOIA request processing.
However, the plan does not directly address improvements to data  reliability. If USDA does not also plan for activities, measures, and  milestones to improve data reliability, it increases the risk that the Farm  Service Agency will not produce reliable FOIA statistics, which are  important for program oversight and meeting the act’s goal of providing  visibility into government FOIA operations.
section_title: Except for SSA, Increases in Requests Received and Processed Are Generally Slowing
paragraphs: The numbers of FOIA requests received and processed continue to rise, but  except for one case—SSA—the rate of increase has flattened in recent  years. For SSA, we present statistics separately because the agency  reported an additional 16 million requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all  other agencies combined, which together total about 2.6 million. SSA  attributed this rise to an improvement in its method of counting requests  and stated that in previous years, these requests were undercounted.  Further, all but about 38,000 of SSA’s over 17 million requests are simple  requests for personal information by or on behalf of individuals.
Figure 2 shows total requests reported governmentwide for fiscal years  2002 through 2005, with SSA’s share shown separately. This figure shows  the magnitude of SSA’s contribution to the whole FOIA picture, as well as  the scale of the jump from 2004 to 2005.
Figure 3 presents statistics omitting SSA on a scale that allows a clearer  view of the rate of increase in FOIA requests received and processed in the  rest of the government. As this figure shows, when SSA’s numbers are  excluded, the rate of increase is modest and has been flattening: For the  whole period (fiscal years 2002 to 2005), requests received increased by  about 29 percent, and requests processed increased by about 27 percent.  Most of this rise occurred from fiscal years 2002 to 2003: about 28 percent  for requests received, and about 27 percent for requests processed. In  contrast, from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, the rise was much less: about 3  percent for requests received, and about 2 percent for requests processed.
According to SSA, the increases that the agency reported in fiscal year 2005  can be attributed to an improvement in its method of counting a category of  requests it calls “simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff.” From fiscal  year 2002 to 2005, SSA’s FOIA reports have consistently shown significant  growth in this category, which has accounted for the major portion of all  SSA requests reported (see table 3). In each of these years, SSA has  attributed the increases in this category largely to better reporting, as well  as actual increases in requests.
SSA describes requests in this category as typically being requests by  individuals for access to their own records, as well as requests in which  individuals consent for SSA to supply information about themselves to  third parties (such as insurance and mortgage companies) so that they can  receive housing assistance, mortgages, disability insurance, and so on.  According to SSA’s FOIA report, these requests are handled by personnel in  about 1,500 locations in SSA, including field and district offices and  teleservice centers. Such requests are almost always granted, according  to SSA, and most receive immediate responses. SSA has stated that it does  not keep processing statistics (such as median days to process) on these  requests, which it reports separately from other FOIA requests (for which  processing statistics are kept). However, officials say that these are  typically processed in a day or less.
According to SSA officials, they included information on these requests in  their annual reports because Justice guidance instructs agencies to treat  Privacy Act requests (requests for records concerning oneself) as FOIA  requests and report them in their annual reports. In addition, SSA officials  said that their automated systems make it straightforward to capture and  report on these simple requests. According to SSA, in fiscal year 2005, the  agency began to use automated systems to capture the numbers of requests  processed by non-FOIA staff, generating statistics automatically as  requests were processed; the result, according to SSA, is a much more  accurate count.
Besides SSA, agencies reporting large numbers of requests received were  the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland  Security, Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as shown in table 4.  The rest of the agencies combined account for only about 5 percent of the  total requests received (if SSA’s simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff  are excluded). Table 4 presents, in descending order of request totals, the  numbers of requests received and percentages of the total (calculated with  and without SSA’s statistics on simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff).
section_title: Most Requests Are Granted in Full
paragraphs: Most FOIA requests in 2005 were granted in full, with relatively few being  partially granted, denied, or not disclosed for other reasons (statistics are  shown in table 5). This generalization holds with or without SSA’s inclusion.  The percentage of requests granted in full was about 87 percent, which is  about the same as in previous years. However, if SSA’s numbers are  included, the proportion of grants dominates the other categories—raising  this number from 87 percent of the total to 98 percent. This is to be  expected, since SSA reports that it grants the great majority of its simple  requests handled by non-FOIA staff, which make up the bulk of SSA’s  statistics.
Three of the seven agencies that handled the largest numbers of requests  (HHS, SSA, and VA; see table 4) also granted the largest percentages of  requests in full, as shown in figure 4. Figure 4 shows, by agency, the  disposition of requests processed: that is, whether granted in full, partially  granted, denied, or “not disclosed for other reasons” (see table 1 for a list of  these reasons).
As the figure shows, the numbers of fully granted requests varied widely  among agencies in fiscal year 2005. Six agencies made full grants of  requested records in over 80 percent of the cases they processed (besides  the three already mentioned, these include Energy, OPM, and SBA). In  contrast, 13 of 24 made full grants of requested records in less than 40  percent of their cases, including 3 agencies (CIA, NSF, and State) that made  full grants in less than 20 percent of cases processed.
This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been  evident in prior years as well. In many cases, the variance can be  accounted for by the types of requests that different agencies process. For  example, as discussed earlier, SSA grants a very high proportion of requests  because they are requests for personal information about individuals that  are routinely made available to or for the individuals concerned. Similarly,  VA routinely makes medical records available to individual veterans, and  HHS also handles large numbers of Privacy Act requests. Such requests are  generally granted in full. Other agencies, on the other hand, receive  numerous requests whose responses must routinely be redacted. For  example, NSF reported in its annual report that most of its requests (an  estimated 90 percent) are for copies of funded grant proposals. The  responsive documents are routinely redacted to remove personal  information on individual principal investigators (such as salaries, home  addresses, and so on), which results in high numbers of “partial grants”  compared to “full grants.”
section_title: Processing Times Vary, but Broad Generalizations Are Limited
paragraphs: For 2005, the reported time required to process requests (by track) varied  considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median processing  times for fiscal year 2005. For agencies that reported processing times by  component rather than for the agency as a whole, the table indicates the  range of median times reported by the agency’s components.
As the table shows, seven agencies had components that reported  processing simple requests in less than 10 days (these components are  parts of the CIA, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and  the Treasury); for each of these agencies, the lower value of the reported  ranges is less than 10. On the other hand, median time to process simple  requests is relatively long at some organizations (for example, components  of Energy and Justice, as shown by median ranges whose upper end values  are greater than 100 days).
For complex requests, the picture is similarly mixed. Components of four  agencies (EPA, DHS, the Treasury, and VA) reported processing complex  requests quickly—with a median of less than 10 days. In contrast, other  components of several agencies (DHS, Energy, EPA, HHS, HUD, Justice,  State, Transportation, and the Treasury) reported relatively long median  times to process complex requests, with median days greater than 100.
Six agencies (AID, HHS, NSF, OPM, SBA, and SSA) reported using single- track processing. The median processing times for single-track processing  varied from 5 days (at an HHS component) to 173 days (at another HHS  component).
The changes from fiscal year 2004 to 2005 also vary. For agencies that  reported agencywide figures, table 7 shows how many showed increased or  decreased median processing times. Table 8 shows these numbers for the  components that were reported separately.
In general, these tables show that no trend emerges across tracks and types  of reporting, and the numbers of agencies and components involved vary  from track to track. The picture that emerges is of great variation in  processing times according to circumstances.
To allow more insight into the variations in median processing times, we  provide in appendix X tables of median processing times as reported by  agencies and components in the annual FOIA reports in fiscal years 2004  and 2005. This attachment also includes information on the number of  requests reported by the agencies and components, which provides context  for assessing the median times reported.
Our ability to make further generalizations about FOIA processing times is  limited by the fact that, as required by the act, agencies report median  processing times only and not, for example, arithmetic means (the usual  meaning of “average” in everyday language). To find an arithmetic mean,  one adds all the members of a list of numbers and divides the result by the  number of items in the list. To find the median, one arranges all the values  in the list from lowest to highest and finds the middle one (or the average  of the middle two if there is no one middle number). Thus, although using  medians provides representative numbers that are not skewed by a few  outliers, they cannot be summed. Deriving a median for two sets of  numbers, for example, requires knowing all numbers in both sets. Only the  source data for the medians can be used to derive a new median, not the  medians themselves.
As a result, with only medians it is not statistically possible to combine  results from different agencies to develop broader generalizations, such as  a governmentwide statistic based on all agency reports, statistics from sets  of comparable agencies, or an agencywide statistic based on separate  reports from all components of the agency.
In rewriting the FOIA reporting requirements in 1996, legislators declared  an interest in making them “more useful to the public and to the Congress,  and  the information in them more accessible.” However, the  limitation on aggregating data imposed by the use of medians alone  impedes the development of broader pictures of FOIA operations. A more  complete picture would be given by the inclusion of other statistics based  on the same data that are used to derive medians, such as means and  ranges. Providing means along with the median would allow more  generalizations to be drawn, and providing ranges would complete the  picture by adding information on the outliers in agency statistics. More  complete information would be useful for public accountability and for  effectively managing agency FOIA programs, as well as for meeting the  act’s goal of providing visibility into government FOIA operations.
section_title: Agency Pending Cases Continue to Increase
paragraphs: In addition to the governmentwide increase in number of requests  processed, many agencies (10 of 24) also reported that their numbers of  pending cases—requests carried over from one year to the next—have  increased since 2002. In 2002, pending requests governmentwide were  reported to number about 138,000, whereas in 2005, about 200,000—45  percent more—were reported. (In addition, the rate of increase grew in  fiscal year 2005, rising 24 percent from fiscal year 2004, compared to 13  percent from 2003 to 2004.) Figure 5 shows these results, illustrating the  accelerating rate at which pending cases have been increasing.
These statistics include pending cases reported by SSA, because SSA’s  pending cases do not include simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff  (for which SSA does not track pending cases). As the figure shows, these  pending cases do not change the governmentwide picture significantly.
Trends for individual agencies show mixed progress in reducing the  number of pending requests reported from 2002 to 2005—some agencies  have decreased numbers of pending cases, while others’ numbers have  increased. Figure 6 shows processing rates at the 24 agencies (that is, the  number of requests that an agency processes relative to the number it  receives). Eight of the 24 agencies (AID, DHS, the Interior, Education, HHS,  HUD, NSF, and OPM) reported processing fewer requests than they  received each year for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005; 8 additional  agencies processed less than they received in 2 of these 3 years (Defense,  Justice, Transportation, GSA, NASA, NRC, SSA, and VA).
In contrast, two agencies (CIA and Energy) had processing rates above 100  percent in all 3 years, meaning that each made continued progress in  reducing their numbers of pending cases. Fourteen additional agencies  were able to make at least a small reduction in their numbers of pending  requests in 1 or more years between fiscal years 2003 and 2005.
section_title: No Regular Mechanism Is in Place for Aggregating Annual Report Data
paragraphs: Legislators noted in 1996 that the FOIA reporting requirements were  rewritten “to make them more useful to the public and to the Congress, and  to make the information in them more accessible.” The Congress also gave  the Department of Justice the responsibility to provide policy guidance and  oversee agencies’ compliance with FOIA.
In its oversight and guidance role, Justice’s Office of Information and  Privacy (OIP) created summaries of the annual FOIA reports and made  these available through its FOIA Post Web page  (www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/mainpage.htm). In 2003, Justice described its  summary as “a major guidance tool.” It pointed out that although it was  not required to do so under the law, the office had initiated the practice of  compiling aggregate summaries of all agencies’ annual FOIA report data as  soon as these were filed by all agencies. These summaries did not contain  aggregated statistical tables, but they did provide prose descriptions that  included statistics on major governmentwide results. However, the most  recent of these summaries is for fiscal year 2003. According to the Acting  Director of OIP, she did not know why such summaries had not been made  available since then. According to this official, internally the agency found  the summaries useful and was considering making them available again.  She also stated that these summaries gave a good overall picture of  governmentwide processing.
Aggregating and summarizing the information in the annual reports serves  to maximize their usefulness and accessibility, in accordance with  congressional intent, as well as potentially providing Justice with insight  into FOIA implementation governmentwide and valuable benchmarks for  use in overseeing the FOIA program. Such information would also be  valuable for others interested in gauging governmentwide performance.  The absence of such summaries reduces the ability of the public and the  Congress to consistently obtain a governmentwide picture of FOIA  processing.
section_title: Agency Improvement Plans Generally Included Areas of Improvement Emphasized by the Executive Order
paragraphs: As required by the Executive Order, all the 25 agencies submitted  improvement plans based on the results of reviews of their respective FOIA  operations, as well as on the areas emphasized by the order. The plans  generally addressed these four areas, with 20 of 25 plans addressing all  four. In particular, for all but 2 agencies with reported backlog, plans  included both measurable goals and timetables for backlog reduction.  Further, to increase reliance on dissemination, improve communications  on the status of requests, and increase public awareness of FOIA  processing, agencies generally set milestones to accomplish activities  promoting these aims. In some cases, agencies did not set goals for a given  area because they determined that they were already strong in that area.
subsections: section_title: All Agencies Addressed Reducing Backlog, and Most Set Measurable Goals and Milestones
paragraphs: The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include “specific  activities that the agency will implement to eliminate or reduce the  agency’s FOIA backlog, including (as applicable) changes that will make  the processing of FOIA requests more streamlined and effective.” It further  states that plans were to include “concrete milestones, with specific  timetables and outcomes to be achieved,” to allow the plan’s success to be  measured and evaluated. In addition, the Justice guidance suggested a  number of process improvement areas for agencies to consider, such as  receiving or responding to requests electronically, automated FOIA  processing, automated tracking capabilities, and multitrack processing. It  also gave agencies considerable leeway in choosing “means of  measurement of success” for improving timeliness and thus reducing  backlog.
All agency plans discussed avoiding or reducing backlog, and most (22 out  of 25) established measurable goals and timetables for this area of focus.  One agency, SBA, reported that it had no backlog, so it set no goals. A  second agency, NSF, set no specific numerical goals for backlog reduction,  but it had minimal backlog (in fiscal year 2005, NSF reported 273 requests  received and 17 pending at the end of the reporting period), and its  median processing time in fiscal year 2005 was 14.26 days. Its plan  includes activities to increase efficiency (such as improving its ability to  process requests electronically and investigating the acquisition of an  improved automated tracking system) and to monitor and analyze  backlogged requests to determine whether systemic changes are warranted  in its processes. Given NSF’s minimal backlog and other improvement  activities planned, the treatment of backlog reduction in its plan seems  reasonable. A third agency, HUD, set a measurable goal for reducing  backlog, but did not include a date by which it planned to achieve it.  However, it achieved this goal, according to agency officials, by November  2006.
The goals chosen by the 22 remaining agencies varied considerably (which  is consistent with the flexibility in choosing measures that Justice provided  in its implementation guidance). Some agencies linked backlog reduction  to various different measures. For example, EPA’s goal was to reduce its  response backlog to less than 10 percent of the number of new FOIA  requests received each year. Energy set a goal of achieving a 50 percent  reduction by June 2007 in the number of pending FOIA cases that were  over 1 year old. NRC chose to focus on improving processing times, setting  percentage goals for completion of different types of requests (for  example, completing 75 percent of simple requests within 20 days). Labor’s  plan sets goals that aim for larger percentages of reduction for the oldest  categories of pending requests (75 percent reduction for the oldest, 50  percent reduction for the next oldest, and so on). A number of agencies  included goals to close their oldest 5 to 10 requests (Justice, the Treasury,  Education, Commerce, Defense, GSA, NASA, SSA, and VA). According to  the Attorney General’s report to the President, in concentrating on their  oldest requests, many agencies followed Justice’s lead.
OPM and DHS plan to eliminate their backlogs, Transportation is planning  to substantially reduce previous fiscal year backlogs, and several agencies  chose goals based on a percentage of reduction of existing backlog (for  example, CIA, Commerce, Education, Defense, the Interior, Justice, SSA,  the Treasury, and USDA). Some agencies also described plans to perform  analyses that would measure their backlogs so that they could then  establish the necessary baselines against which to measure progress. For  example, Labor’s plan includes activities to monitor and determine the  department’s oldest pending requests. The plan states that Labor will use as  its baseline the number of requests that it identifies as pending for various  lengths of time as of December 31, 2006. Similarly, Defense’s plan included  activities to establish backlog levels and use these as the basis for its  objective of reducing backlog by 10 percent annually.
In addition to setting backlog targets, agencies also describe activities that  contribute to reducing backlog. For example, the Treasury plan, which  states that backlog reduction is the main challenge facing the department  and the focus of its plan, includes such activities (with associated  milestones) as reengineering its multitrack FOIA process, monitoring  monthly reports, and establishing a FOIA council.
The agency plans thus provide a variety of activities and measures of  improvement that should permit agency heads, the Congress, and the  public to assess the agencies’ success in implementing their plans to reduce  backlog.
section_title: Most Agencies Plan to Increase Public Dissemination of Records through Web Sites
paragraphs: The Executive Order calls for “increased reliance on the dissemination of  records that can be made available to the public” without the necessity of a  FOIA request, such as through posting on Web sites. In its guidance, Justice  notes that agencies are required by FOIA to post frequently requested  records, policy statements, staff manuals and instructions to staff, and final  agency opinions. It encourages agencies not only to review their activities  to meet this requirement, but also to make other public information  available that might reduce the need to make FOIA requests. It also  suggests that agencies consider improving FOIA Web sites to ensure that  they are user friendly and up to date.
Agency plans generally established goals and timetables for increasing  reliance on public dissemination of records, including through Web sites.  Of 25 agencies, 24 included plans to revise agency Web sites and add  information to them, and 12 of these are making additional efforts to  ensure that frequently requested documents are posted on their Web sites.  For example, Defense is planning to increase the number of its components  that have Web sites as well as posting frequently requested documents.  Interior is planning to facilitate the posting of frequently requested  documents by using scanning and redaction equipment to make electronic  versions readily available.
Agencies planned other related activities, such as making posted  documents easier to find, improving navigation, and adding other helpful  information. For example, besides reviewing its Web site to verify and add  links, AID plans to establish an “information/searching decision tree” to  assist Web site visitors by directing them to agency public affairs staff who  may be able to locate information and avoid the need for visitors to file  FOIA requests. Besides adding frequently requested documents, CIA plans  to improve navigation and review its site quarterly. HUD plans activities to  anticipate topics that may produce numerous FOIA requests (“hot button”  issues) and post relevant documents. Education is planning to use its  automated tracking technology to determine when it is receiving multiple  requests for similar information and then post such information on its Web  site. Based on its FOIA review, NRC determined that it would be helpful to  requesters for the agency to provide examples of the types of information  in NRC documents that might be covered by FOIA exemptions, and it  established goals to achieve this.
The Treasury plan does not address increasing public dissemination of  records. Treasury’s plan, as mentioned earlier, is focused on backlog  reduction. It does not mention the other areas emphasized in the Executive  Order, list them among the areas it selected for review, or explain the  decision to omit them from the review and plan. Treasury officials told us  that they concentrated in their plan on areas where they determined the  department had a deficiency: namely, a backlog consisting of numerous  requests, some of which were very old (dating as far back as 1991). By  comparison, they did not consider they had deficiencies in the other areas.  With regard to increasing dissemination, they noted that their Web sites  currently provide frequently requested records. However, without a careful  review of the department’s current dissemination practices or a plan to  take actions to increase dissemination, Treasury does not have assurance  that it has identified and exploited available opportunities to increase  dissemination of records in such a way as to reduce the need for the public  to make FOIA requests, as stressed by the Executive Order.
section_title: Most Agency Plans Included Improving Status Communications with FOIA Requesters
paragraphs: The Executive Order sets as policy that agencies shall provide FOIA  requesters ways to learn about the status of their FOIA requests and states  that agency improvement plans shall ensure that FOIA administration is in  accordance with this policy. In its implementation guidance, Justice  reiterated the order’s emphasis on providing status information to  requesters and discussed the need for agencies to examine, among other  things, their capabilities for tracking status and the forms of  communication used with requesters.
Most agencies (22 of 25) established goals and timetables for improving  communications with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests.  Goals set by these agencies included planned changes to communications,  including sending acknowledgement letters, standardizing letters to  requesters, including information on elements of a proper FOIA request in  response letters, and posting contact information on Web pages. Both  NASA and Interior planned to establish toll free numbers for requesters to  obtain status information. NASA also included plans to acquire software  that would allow a requester to access and track status of his or her  request. Interior planned to develop and post frequently asked questions to  provide requesters with information about where to submit their requests,  processing times, fees charged, and how to check on the status of their  requests. HUD’s plan included posting information on its Web site,  providing training on customer service, and gauging progress through  public forums at which it can receive comments on improving FOIA  performance.
Three agencies did not include improvement goals because they  considered them unnecessary. In two cases (Defense and EPA), agencies  considered that status communications were already an area of strength.
Defense considered that it was strong in both customer responsiveness and  communications. Defense performed extensive surveys of the opinions and  practices of its FOIA staff and Public Liaisons and concluded that “FOIA  personnel routinely contact requesters to try to resolve problems and to  better define requests.” Defense’s Web site provides instructions for  requesters on how to get information about the status of requests, as well  as information on Requester Service Centers and Public Liaisons. Defense  officials also told us that this information is included in acknowledgement  letters to requesters. In addition, these officials stated that planned  revisions to Defense FOIA Web sites would promote improving status  communications, and that the department is working to implement an  Interactive Customer Collection tool that would enable requesters to  provide feedback.
Similarly, EPA officials told us that they considered the agency’s activities  to communicate with requesters on the status of their requests to be  already effective, noting that many of the improvements planned by other  agencies were already in effect at EPA. For example, EPA sends out an  acknowledgment letter within a day of the request that includes a tracking  number, the department that will be involved, and a contact name and  telephone number. Officials also stated that EPA holds regular FOIA  requester forums, the last held on November 1, 2006, and that EPA’s  requester community had expressed satisfaction with EPA’s  responsiveness. EPA’s response to the Executive Order describes its efforts  to communicate with requesters, including activities of staff at its FOIA  Service Center and a FOIA hotline through which callers may receive  information on the status of their requests. It also describes the enterprise  FOIA management system, deployed in 2005, that provides “cradle to  grave” tracking of incoming requests and responses.
The third agency, Treasury, did not address improving status  communications, as its plan is entirely focused on backlog reduction. As  required by the Executive Order, Treasury did set up Requester Service  Centers and Public Liaisons, which are among the mechanisms envisioned  to improve status communications. However, because Treasury omitted  status communications from the areas of improvement that it selected for  review, it is not clear that this area received attention commensurate with  the emphasis it was given in the Executive Order. Without such attention to  communication with requesters, Treasury increases the risk that its FOIA  operations will not be as responsive and citizen centered as the Executive  Order envisioned.
section_title: Agencies Generally Plan to Rely on FOIA Reference Guides to Increase Public Awareness of FOIA Processing
paragraphs: The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include activities  to increase public awareness of FOIA processing, including (as  appropriate) expanded use of Requester Service Centers and FOIA Public  Liaisons, which agencies were required to establish by the order. In  Justice’s guidance, it linked this requirement to the FOIA Reference Guide  that agencies are required to maintain as an aid to potential FOIA  requesters, because such guides can be an effective means for increasing  public awareness. Accordingly, the Justice guidance advised agencies to  double-check these guides to ensure that they remain comprehensive and  up to date.
Most agencies (23 of 25) defined goals and timetables for increasing public  awareness of FOIA processing, generally including ensuring that FOIA  reference guides were up to date. In addition, all 25 agencies established  Requester Service Centers and Public Liaisons as required by the Executive  Order. Besides these activities, certain agencies planned other types of  outreach: for example, the Department of State reported taking steps to  obtain feedback from the public on how to improve FOIA processes; GSA  plans to post information about what GSA can and cannot release; the  Department of the Interior plans to initiate feedback surveys on requesters’  FOIA experience; and the Department of Labor is planning to hold public  forums and solicit suggestions from the requester community. Defense did  not set specific goals and milestones in this area; according to Defense, it  did not do so because its FOIA handbook had already been updated in the  fall of 2005. The department also established Requester Service Centers  and Public Liaisons, as required. Department officials told us that in  meeting their goals and milestones for revising FOIA Web sites, they expect  to improve awareness of Defense’s FOIA process, as well as public access  and other objectives.
As mentioned earlier, Treasury did not address this area in its review or  plan. However, Treasury has established Requester Service Centers and  FOIA Public Liaisons, as required. Treasury’s Director of Disclosure  Services also told us that Treasury provides on its Web site a FOIA  handbook, a Privacy Act handbook, and a citizen’s guide for requesters. In  addition, this official told us that Treasury had updated its FOIA handbook  in 2005 and conducted staff training based on the update. However, at the  time of our review, the FOIA handbook on the Web site was a version dated  January 2000. When we pointed out that this earlier version was posted, the  official indicated that he would arrange for the most recent version to be  posted.
Because Treasury did not review its efforts to increase public awareness, it  missed an opportunity to discover that the handbook on the Web site was  outdated and thus might not provide assurance to the public that the  information provided was fully up to date, reducing its effectiveness as a  communication tool. Without further attention to increasing public  awareness, Treasury lacks assurance that it has taken all appropriate steps  to ensure that the public has the means of understanding the agency’s FOIA  processing.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information about  citizens’ use of this important tool to obtain information about the  operation and decisions of the federal government. The value of this  information clearly depends, however, on its accuracy. In the case of the  USDA’s Farm Service Agency, which is not assured of the accuracy of its  data, the department’s FOIA improvement plan is an opportunity to address  data reliability along with other processing improvements. In addition, one  value of the annual reports lies in the possibility they provide of seeing  trends and drawing generalizations. However, our ability to generalize  about processing times, whether from agency to agency or year to year, is  limited because only median times are reported. Since processing times are  an important gauge of government responsiveness to citizen inquiries, this  limitation is significant. Medians are useful as representative numbers that  are not skewed by a few outliers, but the addition of averages (arithmetic  means) and ranges would enhance the ability to make useful comparisons  and provide a more complete picture. Finally, in the absence of aggregated  statistics and summaries, as formerly provided by the Justice Department,  it is difficult to obtain a governmentwide picture of FOIA processing.  Providing such statistics and summaries could increase the value of the  annual reporting process for assessing the performance of the FOIA  program as a whole.
The Executive Order provided a useful impetus for agencies to review their  FOIA operations and ensure that they are appropriately responsive to the  public generally and requesters specifically. The 25 agencies submitted  FOIA improvement plans that generally responded to elements emphasized  by the Executive Order and form a reasonable basis for carrying out the  order’s goals. In general, all the plans show a commendable focus on  making measurable improvements. One agency (Treasury) submitted a  plan that could be improved by closer adherence to the other elements,  besides backlog, specified by the Executive Order.
Implementing the improvement plans and reporting on their progress  should serve to keep management attention on FOIA and its role in keeping  citizens well informed about the operations of their government. However,  to realize the goals of the Executive Order, it will be important for Justice  and the agencies to continue to refine the improvement plans and monitor  progress in their implementation.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To improve the usefulness of the statistics in agency annual FOIA reports,  the Congress should consider amending the act to require agencies to  report additional statistics on processing time, which at a minimum should  include average times and ranges.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To provide a clearer picture of FOIA processing both in a given year and  over time, we recommend that the Attorney General direct Justice’s Office  of Information and Privacy to use data from annual reports to develop  summaries and aggregate statistics (as appropriate) for categories of  agencies (such as major departments), as well as governmentwide.
To ensure that USDA data in FOIA annual reports are accurate and  complete, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief  FOIA Officer for the department to revise the department’s FOIA  improvement plan to include activities, goals, and milestones to improve  data reliability for the Farm Service Agency and to monitor results.
To ensure that its plan includes an appropriate focus on communicating  with requesters and the public, we recommend that the Secretary of the  Treasury direct the department’s Chief FOIA Officer to review its FOIA  operations in the other areas emphasized in the Executive Order  (increasing reliance on public dissemination of records, improving  communications with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests,  and increasing public awareness of FOIA processing) and, as appropriate,  revise the improvement plan for fiscal year 2007 to include goals and  milestones in these areas.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 25 agencies for review  and comment. All but one agency (the Department of the Treasury)  generally agreed with our assessment and recommendations or had no  comment. Seven agencies provided written comments: the Departments  of Agriculture, Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, along with AID,  EPA, and NSF (printed in apps. II through VIII). In addition, OMB, the  Interior, Transportation, HUD, OPM, and SSA provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
The Acting Director of Justice’s Office of Information and Policy concurred  with our assessment and stated that Justice agrees with our  recommendation and plans to implement it (see app. III). The Acting  Director stated that the office plans to resume compiling summaries of the  annual reports, beginning with those for fiscal year 2006.
The Chief FOIA Officer of Agriculture provided additional information on  actions that the department has taken to improve FOIA processing, as well  as actions that the Farm Service Agency is taking to ensure that its data are  reliable (see app. II).
Except for Treasury, other agencies providing written comments generally  provided additional information on their FOIA programs or provided  suggestions on the draft.
EPA and NSF offered additional information about their FOIA  operations.
Both VA and AID stated their view that ample time should be given to  accommodate reporting changes.
VA also suggested including cases both received and processed in our  discussion of the increase in pending requests. We augmented the  section on pending requests to include a reference to statistics on cases  received and processed.
In written and e-mail comments, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for  Headquarters Operations indicated that the department generally agreed  with our premise that Treasury’s plan needs to more thoroughly integrate  the Executive Order and noted that the plan is a living, dynamic document  that will accommodate changing circumstances. (Treasury’s written  comments are provided in app. IV.) The Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary  stated that the department will be evaluating its improvement plan and  taking action to improve its FOIA administration. However, Treasury also  partially disagreed with our assessment, and it disagreed with our  recommendation.
According to Treasury, our assessment and recommendation minimize the  importance of reducing backlog in the Executive Order and Justice  guidance and do not give sufficient weight to other aspects of its  improvement plan, such as the establishment of a FOIA council to improve  FOIA administration, the establishment of FOIA Requester Service Centers  and Public Liaisons, and its compliance with the e-FOIA amendments’  requirement that frequently posted records be posted on agency Web sites.  Further, Treasury considered that our assessment does not sufficiently  recognize the activities and programs that the department already had in  place (beyond backlog reduction) before the order was issued, which were  not included in its plan (such as technology improvements to upgrade the  department’s FOIA tracking system in 2005 and to upgrade IRS databases).
We do not believe that we minimize the importance of reducing backlog;  our report indicates that this is a major focus of the Executive Order.  However, it was not the only focus of the Executive Order, which also  emphasized a citizen-centered approach to FOIA implementation. The  three areas of emphasis that we suggest would benefit from further  attention are all related to a citizen-centered approach in that they focus on  communication with the public and especially with requesters. It may be  that Treasury’s FOIA council will provide this focus; however, this was not  clear from the agency’s plan, which included no milestones or goals in  these areas to guide the council’s future activities.
We also disagree with Treasury’s view that we do not give sufficient weight  to the activities that the plan included or that Treasury officials indicated  were already in progress. Although we took these into account, they did not  provide evidence that Treasury was already giving or planned to give the  level of attention to the three areas of emphasis that was envisioned by the  Executive Order. For example, although Treasury’s compliance with the  1996 e-FOIA amendments is important, the Executive Order asks agencies  to look for opportunities to go beyond complying with legal requirements  to disseminate records. Similarly, although the technology improvements  that Treasury described have the potential to improve FOIA processing  (including improvements in the three areas of emphasis), the plan did not  tie these improvements and actions to goals or milestones in the three  areas. As a result, we did not change our assessment. However, we have  clarified the language of the report to emphasize that our assessment is  based on meeting the level of attention emphasized in the Executive Order.
We note, however, that Treasury in its comments indicates that it does plan  to continue to reevaluate its improvement plan and modify it to  accommodate changing circumstances. If future modifications specifically  address external communications, particularly with requesters, the goal of  our recommendation may be achieved.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Director  of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of departments and  agencies we reviewed. Copies will be made available to others on request.  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site  at www.gao.gov.
If you should have questions about this report, please contact me at (202)  512-6240 or via e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To gauge agencies’ progress in processing requests, we analyzed the  workload data (from fiscal year 2002 through 2005) included in the 25  agencies’ annual FOIA reports to assess trends in volume of requests  received and processed, median processing times, and the number of  pending cases. All agency workload data were self-reported in annual  reports submitted to the Attorney General.
To assess the reliability of the information contained in agency annual  reports, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and assessed  quality control processes agencies had in place. We selected 10 agencies to  assess data reliability: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense,  Education, the Interior, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Small  Business Administration, and Social Security Administration. We chose the  Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs because they  processed a majority of the requests. To ensure that we selected agencies  of varying size, we chose the remaining 8 agencies by ordering them  according to the number of requests they received, from smallest to largest,  and choosing every third agency. These 10 agencies account for 97 percent  of the received requests that were reported in the 25 agencies’ annual  reports.
Of the 10 agencies that were assessed for data reliability, we determined  that the data for USDA’s Farm Service Agency were not reliable; these data  account for over 80 percent of the reported USDA data. We therefore  eliminated USDA’s data from our analysis. Because of this elimination, our  analysis was of 24 major agencies (herein we refer to this scope as  governmentwide). Table 9 shows the 25 agencies and their reliability  assessment status.
To determine to what extent the agency improvement plans contain the  elements emphasized by the order, we first analyzed the Executive Order to  determine how it described the contents of the improvement plans. We  determined that the order emphasized the following areas to be addressed  by the plans: (1) reducing the backlog of FOIA requests, (2) increasing  reliance on public dissemination of records (affirmative and proactive)  including through Web sites, (3) improving communications with FOIA  requesters about the status of their requests, and (4) increasing public  awareness of FOIA processing including updating an agency’s FOIA  Reference Guide. We also analyzed the improvement plans to determine if  they contained specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables for each of  the criteria. We then analyzed the 25 agencies’ (including USDA) plans to  determine whether they contained goals and timetables for each of these  four elements. We evaluated the versions of agency plans available as of  December 15, 2006.
We also reviewed the Executive Order itself, implementing guidance issued  by OMB and the Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by  Justice, and our past work in this area.
We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. We performed our work from May 2006 to  January 2007 in Washington, D.C.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Comments from the Department of Justice
paragraphs: Office of Information and Privacy Washington, D. C.
subsections: section_title: February 20, 2007
paragraphs: Linda D. Koontz Director Information Management Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled "Freedom ofInformation Act: Processing Trends Show Importance ofImprovement Plans" (GAO-07-441). The Department believes that GAO's draft report accurately depicts the status and trends ofFOIA processing at twenty-five major agencies as reflected in those agencies' annual reports and FOIA improvement plans required by Executive Order 13,392.
We would like to take this opportunity to address GAO's recommendation that the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) use the data collected in agencies' annual reports to develop summaries of governmentwide FOIA activities. As noted in GAO's draft report, in the past, although not required to do so under the law, OIP compiled summaries of the annual FOIA reports and made these available through Justice's FOIA Web page. The Department agrees with GAO that such summaries provide the public and the Congress a governmentwide picture ofFOIA processing. Accordingly, OIP will resume compiling the aforementioned summaries beginning with a summary of the fiscal year 2006 annual reports. These summaries will follow the same format and include the same type of information as provided in OIP's prior summaries.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report, and we look forward to additional collaboration in our efforts to further improve FOIA processing governmentwide.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Richard P. Theis, Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group on (202) 514-0469.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Treasury
section_title: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Comments from the Agency for International Development
section_title: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Comments from the National Science Foundation
section_title: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
paragraphs: Matters that are exempt from FOIA (A) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of  national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such  statute (A) requires that matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the  issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be  withheld.
Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.
Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other  than an agency in litigation with the agency.
Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted  invasion of personal privacy.
Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of  such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings; would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or  foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and,  in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a  criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation,  information furnished by confidential source; would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would  disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be  expected to risk circumvention of the law; or  could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the  use of an agency responsible for the regulation of supervision of financial institutions.
Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
section_title: Median Processing Times Reported
paragraphs: The attached tables present median processing times as reported by  agencies in their annual FOIA reports in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. To  provide context, we include numbers of requests processed for each  agency or component. We also indicate (in columns headed “±”) whether  the median days to process rose (+), fell (–), or remained unchanged (=).  (We also use “~” to indicate other types of changes, such as the  establishment of a new component.)
Agencies report median processing times according to processing tracks:  that is, some agencies divide requests into simple and complex categories  and process these in separate tracks, whereas others use a single track.  Accordingly, the tables show these tracks where applicable. In addition,  agencies are required to subject some requests to expedited processing,  and these are reported as a separate track.
Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development National Aeronautics and Space Administration Social Security Administration (Continued From Previous Page)
subsections: section_title: Agency for International Development
paragraphs: No. + increase   – decrease   = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Central Intelligence Agency
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Component did not exist.
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
subsections: section_title: Department of Defense No. = number of requests processed; Days = median days to process; ± =
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Component did not exist.
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Statistics not broken down by component.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: No.
No. (b) (b)
No.
No. (c) (c) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Component did not exist.
In addition to the expedited track, the FBI maintains three tracks for reuests: small (0 to 500 pages),  medium (501 to 2,500 pages), and large (more than 2,500 pages). The former is reported in the  “simple reuests” category; the latter two are reported as “complex reuests.” Therefore FBI’s complex  reuests were excluded from analysis.
Justice Management Division used average days opposed to median days, so it was excluded.
section_title: Department of Labor
paragraphs: No.
No.
No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Transportation
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: No.
No.
No.
No. + increase  – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: General Services Administration
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
paragraphs: Two tables are provided for this department, because its components  report both multitrack (simple and complex) processing and single-track  processing.
No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a)
No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a)
No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Component did not exist.
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: National Science Foundation
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase  – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Small Business Administration
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase  – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Social Security Administration
paragraphs: No.
No.
No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: No.
No. + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs
paragraphs: The department reports all processing in one track, but it refers to this  track as complex, rather than single track.
No.
No. (a) (a) (a)
No.
No. (a) (a) (a) (a) + increase   – decrease  = no change  ~ other change (change in reporting, new component, etc.)
Component did not exist.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this report  were made by Barbara Collier, Acting Assistant Director; Alan Stapleton,  Assistant Director; James Ashley, Marisol Cruz; Wilfred Holloway; Vernetta  Marquis; David Plocher; Kelly Shaw; Shawn Ward; and Elizabeth Zhao.