Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans
Published: 2007-02-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies must provide the public with access to government information, enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure proper implementation, the act requires that agencies annually report specific information about their FOIA operations, such as numbers of requests received and processed and median processing times. In addition, a recent Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to improve their FOIA operations, including decreasing backlogs. GAO was asked to testify on the results of its study on FOIA processing and agencies' improvement plans. The draft report on the study is currently out for comment at the agencies involved (and is thus subject to change). For the study, GAO reviewed 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 (for example, one agency did not explicitly address areas of improvement other than backlog), 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: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee’s  hearing on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) and agency efforts to comply with this important legislation.  Generally speaking, 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. In addition, the President issued an  Executive Order in December 2005 that is 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 Web sites;   improve communications with requesters about the status of  their requests; and   increase public awareness of FOIA processing.
As requested, in my remarks today, I will discuss two topics: (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.
My discussion is based on ongoing work that we performed in  response to a request from the former chairman of the  Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and  Accountability (House Committee on Government Reform), for  which you are now a co-requester. The draft report on this work is  currently out for comment; accordingly, some of the information  may be revised before the report is finalized.
For the review described in the draft report, we described statistics  on the processing of FOIA requests based on our analysis of 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 contain 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  attachment 1.
All work on which this testimony was based was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
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 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 (attachment II 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 receipt of the  appeal), and whether to provide expedited processing of requests  (10 calendar days from receipt of the request). 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, for example, for 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 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 requests; determinations made by the agency not to disclose information  and the reasons for not disclosing the information; disposition of administrative appeals by requesters; information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA  requests; and  full-time-equivalent staffing information.
In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney  General, agencies are to make them available to the public in  electronic form. The Attorney General is required to make all agency  reports available on line at a single electronic access point and  report to 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  are omitted from our statistical analysis, 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 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).
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 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 processing greater numbers of requests, 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 two of these three 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 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 was not certain 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.
In providing agency views for this testimony, the Acting Director of  OIP told us that the department would resume providing summaries,  and that these would generally be available by the summer following  the issuance of the annual reports.
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 in fiscal year 2005 its backlog was  minimal, and its median processing time was 14.26 days. In  addition, its plan includes activities to increase efficiency and to  monitor and analyze backlogged requests to determine whether  systemic changes are warranted in its processes. A third agency,  HUD, set a measurable goal for reducing backlog, but did not  include a date by which it planned to achieve this goal. However, it  achieved this goal, according to agency officials, by November  2006. carefully determine which ones best fit their individual circumstances, which can  vary greatly from one agency to another.” 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).
Other agencies planned to eliminate their backlogs (for example,  OPM and DHS) or to eliminate fiscal year 2005 backlog  (Transportation), 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.
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, 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. 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.
The Treasury plan does not address increasing public dissemination  of records. The 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. They also  stated that neither Justice nor OMB had suggested that they revise  the plan to include these areas. With regard to dissemination, they  told us that they did not consider increasing dissemination to be  mandatory, and they noted that their Web sites currently provide  frequently requested records and other public documents, as  required by the act. However, without a careful review of the  department’s current dissemination practices or a plan to take  actions to increase dissemination, the 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. Other activities included  establishing toll free numbers for requesters to obtain status  information, acquiring software to allow requesters to track the  status of their requests, and holding public forums.
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’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. Officials also told us that  this information is included in acknowledgement letters to  requesters, 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. Officials also stated that EPA holds regular FOIA  requester forums (the last in November 2006), and that EPA’s  requester community had expressed satisfaction with EPA’s  responsiveness. EPA’s response to the Executive Order  describes its FOIA hotline for requesters and its enterprise FOIA  management system, deployed in 2005, that provides “cradle to  grave” tracking of incoming requests and responses.
The third agency, the Treasury, did not address improving status  communications, as its plan is focused on backlog reduction. As  required by the Executive Order, the Treasury did set up Requester  Service Centers and Public Liaisons, which are among the  mechanisms envisioned to improve status communications.  However, because the 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 attention to  communication with requesters, the Treasury increases the risk that  its FOIA operations will not be responsive and citizen centered, as  envisioned by the Executive Order.
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; 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. 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 improving public access and other objectives.
As mentioned earlier, the Treasury did not address this area in its  review or plan. However, Treasury has established Requester  Service Centers and FOIA Public Liaisons, as required. The  Treasury’s Director of Disclosure Services also told us that the  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 the 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 the 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 had reduced effectiveness as  a tool to explain the agency’s FOIA processing to the public.  Without further attention to increasing public awareness, the  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: Annual Reporting and Selected Improvement Plans Could Be Further Enhanced
paragraphs: The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information  about citizens’ use of this important tool for obtaining information  about government operation and decisions. The value of this  information is enhanced when it can be used to reveal trends and  support generalizations, but our ability to generalize about  processing times—whether from agency to agency or year to year— is limited because only median times are reported. Given that  processing times are an important gauge of government  responsiveness to citizen inquiries, this limitation 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. Finally, having aggregated statistics and summaries could  increase the value of the annual reporting process for assessing the  performance of the FOIA program as a whole.
In the draft report on which my statement today is based, we  suggest that the Congress consider amending the act to require  agencies to report additional statistics on processing time, which at  a minimum should include average times and ranges. We also  recommend that Justice provide aggregated statistics and  summaries of the annual reports.
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. Our  draft report makes recommendations aimed at improving selected  agency improvement plans. Nonetheless, all the plans show a  commendable focus on making measurable improvements and form  a reasonable basis for carrying out the order’s goals.
In summary, increasing the requirements for annual reporting would  further improve the public visibility of the government’s  implementation of FOIA. In addition, 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.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the  Subcommittee may have at this time.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you should have questions about this testimony, please contact  me at (202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. Other major contributors  included Barbara Collier, Kelly Shaw, and Elizabeth Zhao.
section_title: Attachment I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: For the draft report on which this testimony is based, we gauged  agencies’ progress in processing requests by analyzing 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 7 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 February 2007 in Washington, D.C.
section_title: Attachment II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
paragraphs: Exemption number  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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.