Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments
Published: 2002-08-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) established the public's right of access to government information, on the basis of openness and accountability. The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act (e-FOIA) Amendments extended these principles to include electronic access to information. Under the act, the Department of Justice provides implementing guidance to agencies. In addition, agencies report annually to Justice on their FOIA operations. GAO was asked to determine, among other things, (1) agencies' progress in improving their timeliness in responding to requests for information and (2) the actions Justice has taken on previous GAO recommendations ( GAO-01-378 , Mar. 16, 2001) to improve data quality in annual reports and on-line availability of government information.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Changes in agency reporting conventions--made to improve accuracy and consistency--make it difficult to identify clear trends in timeliness for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. However, while the number of requests received appears to be leveling off, backlogs of pending requests governmentwide are substantial and growing, indicating that agencies are falling behind in processing requests. In response to our previous recommendation on data quality--including consistency and accuracy of reporting--Justice issued supplemental guidance, augmented its training programs, and continued reviewing agency annual reports. Data quality improved, but numerous anomalies remained in agencies' fiscal year 2001 reports. Justice's efforts to implement this recommendation are continuing. Justice also issued guidance encouraging better on-line availability of information, as GAO recommended. Although agencies have progressed in making information available electronically, not all materials required by e-FOIA were available on line as of May/June 2002. Further, certain information was difficult to find and was not always continuously available on Web sites. Justice officials stated that they are continuing to reinforce the need for full e-FOIA compliance and periodic agency review of Web site content, and to facilitate the sharing of best practices. Justice generally agreed with the report's findings and conclusions.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In our open society, public access to information about the government and  its operations is a strongly held value.  The Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) has been a valuable tool through which the public has been able to  learn about the operation and decisions of the federal government.   Specific requests by the public for information through FOIA have led to  the disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the government  and the identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs, and  serious health hazards.
The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act (e-FOIA) Amendments  were intended to extend the principles of FOIA to information stored  electronically and improve public access to agency information, in part by  requiring more materials to be available electronically.  The amendments  were also intended to ensure agency compliance with statutory time limits  for responding to FOIA requests.  As you requested, this report addresses  the progress that federal agencies have made in implementing the e-FOIA  amendments since our previous March 2001 report.
Last year’s report disclosed that data quality issues limited the usefulness  of agencies’ annual FOIA reports and that agencies had not provided on- line access to all of the information required by e-FOIA.  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 of the required materials available  electronically.
As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this update were to  determine the progress that the 25 federal agencies studied have made  in processing FOIA requests;  determine the progress that the 25 agencies have made in developing on- line access to materials as required by e-FOIA (often referred to as  “electronic reading room” access);  provide information on the views of FOIA officials and requesters  regarding the impact of the post-September 11, 2001, environment on  implementation; and  determine what actions Justice has taken on our previous  recommendations.
We assessed the 25 agencies’ implementation progress by analyzing data  from the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 annual reports they submitted to the  Attorney General, and by analyzing their department-level and FOIA- related Web sites to determine whether materials were available.  We also  interviewed FOIA officials at the eight major agencies covered in our  previous report.  To obtain information on the impact of the post- September 11 environment and of actions taken by Justice on our previous  recommendations, we drew upon interviews with officials in the eight  agencies, Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), and the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB) as well as information from members of  the FOIA requester community.  The requester community members we  contacted, most of whom had been identified during our previous study,  are widely recognized for their expertise and involvement in issues  pertaining to use of the act, and advocate public access to government  information.  Details of our scope and methodology are included as  appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FOIA established 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, an individual seeking access faced the  burden of establishing a right to examine government records.  FOIA also  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 was enacted in 1966 and  was amended in 1974, 1976, 1986, and 1996.  The amendments in 1974  through 1986 made changes in procedures, modified exemptions from  FOIA, protected sensitive law enforcement information, and created new  fee and fee-waiver provisions.  The 1996 amendments are known as the e- FOIA amendments, discussed in detail later in this section.
FOIA provides public access to government information through two  means:  affirmative agency disclosure and public request for disclosure.   Affirmative agency disclosure takes place in one of two ways.  FOIA  requires disclosure through Federal Register publication of information,  such as descriptions of agency organizations, functions, procedures, rules,  and statements of general policy.  This has come to be known as the FOIA  publication requirement.  The act also requires disclosure of final opinions  and orders, specific policy statements, certain administrative manuals, and  certain records previously released under FOIA to be made available for  public inspection and copying.  This has come to be known as the FOIA  reading room requirement.
Public request for disclosure of records is the most well-known part of  FOIA.  Any member of the public may use it to request access to  information held by federal agencies, without showing a need or reasons  for seeking the information.  Agencies may deny access to material (e.g., by  withholding records or redacting information) that falls within any of nine  statutory categories of exemptions (see table 3 in app. II).   There are also  FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held by law enforcement  agencies.  Agencies have statutory timelines for determining whether to  comply with FOIA requests, making determinations with respect to appeals  of adverse determinations, and determining whether to provide expedited  processing of FOIA requests.  Requesters are entitled to be told the reason  for denials, to appeal denials, and to challenge them in court.  Under the  act, agencies are required to submit annual reports on these FOIA activities  to the Attorney General.
Figure 1 provides an overview of a generic agency FOIA process, from  receipt of a request to the release of records.  A brief overview of agency  FOIA processing is included as appendix II.
The 1986 FOIA amendments established the current fee structure.   Agencies may assess three levels of fees, each with statutory limitations,  according to the type of requester and the intended use of the information  sought.  The first level of fees includes charges for document search,  review, and duplication.  These charges apply when records are requested  for commercial use, defined in the OMB fee schedule guidelines as “a use  or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade or profit interests of the  requester or the person on whose behalf the request is being made.”  The  second level of fees exempts educational or noncommercial scientific  institutions and representatives of the news media from being charged  search and review fees when records are not requested for commercial use.  In such instances, these requesters are charged only for document  duplication.  The third level of fees, which applies to all requesters who do  not fall within either of the preceding two fee levels, consists of reasonable  charges for document search and duplication.
Except for commercial-use requesters, agencies must provide the first 100  pages of duplication, as well as the first 2 hours of search time, without  cost to the requester.  Agencies may not charge fees if the government's  cost of collecting and processing the fee is likely to equal or exceed the  amount of the fee itself.  Agencies also may not require a requester to make  an advance payment (i.e., payment before work is begun or continued on a  request) unless the agency first estimates that the assessable fee is likely to  exceed $250, or unless the requester has previously failed to pay a properly  assessed fee in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days of the billing date).   Agencies may, however, require payment before records that have been  processed are released.
subsections: section_title: Roles of Justice and OMB in FOIA Implementation
paragraphs: Justice oversees agencies’ compliance with FOIA and is the primary source  of policy guidance for agencies.  Justice’s specific 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 agency  reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a similar  format; and  submit an annual report on FOIA statistics and the efforts undertaken  by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
In addition, FOIA requires OMB to issue guidelines to “provide for a  uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.”  Agencies are required to  conform their fee schedules to the OMB fee schedule guidelines.   E-FOIA  requires each agency head to prepare and make publicly available  reference material or a guide for requesting information from the agency,  including a handbook for obtaining public information.  OMB issued an  agency guidance memorandum for developing such handbooks.
section_title: The 1996 e-FOIA Amendments
paragraphs: These amendments sought to strengthen the requirement that agencies  respond to FOIA requests in a timely manner and reduce their backlogs of  pending requests.  To that end, the amendments made a number of  procedural changes, including   providing requesters with an opportunity to limit the scope of their  requests so that the requests could be processed more quickly;  authorizing agencies to implement multitrack processing, so they could  process requests by single and complex tracks, instead of processing all  requests on a single-track, first-in/first-out basis (thus giving agencies  the flexibility to respond to relatively simple requests more quickly); and   requiring agencies to expedite processing for requests meeting the  criteria for “compelling need” that warrants prioritization over other  requests that were made earlier, with the requirement that an agency  determine within 10 days whether to provide such expedited processing.
The amendments also required agencies to determine within 20 working  days (an increase from the previous 10 days) whether a request would be  fulfilled and to notify the requester immediately.  Congress did not establish  a statutory deadline for making releasable records available, but instead  required agencies to make them available promptly.
E-FOIA encouraged on-line, public access to government information by  requiring agencies to make six specific types of records, created on or after  November 1, 1996, available in electronic form.  The six elements that the  amendments require agencies to make available on line are  agency final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as  well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;   statements of policy and interpretations that have been adopted by the  agency and are not published in the Federal Register;  administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a  member of the public;  copies of records that have been released to any person through FOIA  and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency  determines have become or are likely to become the subject of  subsequent requests for substantially the same records;   a general index of the “frequently requested records” referred to in the   the annual FOIA report.
Agencies are also required to make eight types of related information and  reference materials publicly available.  The law did not explicitly require  these elements to be made publicly available in electronic form.  These are   FOIA fee schedule,  an index of major information systems,  a description of major information systems,  a description of agency record locator systems, and   reference materials or handbooks on how to request records or  information.
Finally, agencies have incorporated features that facilitate public access to  government information into their Web sites.  These features, which are not  required by law, are  information on obtaining public services,  a FOIA link on the agency home page,  a FOIA Web page,  Web site search features,  ability for requesters to submit requests electronically,  electronic links to FOIA office(s), and  electronic links to program divisions.
According to legislative history, using electronic access to make more  affirmative disclosure of the frequently requested material was expected to  reduce additional FOIA requests for the same material.  This was expected  to enable agencies to make better use of their limited resources to  complete other, more complex, requests on time.  Because the affirmative  disclosure provisions had historically been considered to provide access  through a physical reading room, the expanded on-line access provisions,  including frequently requested records and other required elements, have  commonly come to be called “electronic reading room” access.
The e-FOIA amendments also made changes to agency reporting  requirements.  The amendments changed the reporting period from  calendar year to fiscal year and allowed agencies more time to prepare  their annual reports.  Agencies were to provide these reports to the  Attorney General by February 1 of each year and 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.
E-FOIA also expanded on the previous reporting requirements.  For  example, it added requirements for information regarding denials, appeals,  the number of requests pending at the end of the fiscal year, the median  number of days that requests have been pending, the median number of  days required to process requests, the amount of fees collected, and the  number of staff devoted to FOIA processing.  According to legislative  history, these changes were intended to make the reports more useful to  the public and Congress by providing more visibility into response times,  reasons for not providing a response, resources and workloads, and  backlogs of pending requests.  The intent was to allow meaningful  comparisons among agencies about performance and allow Congress to  monitor individual agencies’ progress over time.
section_title: Justice Has Issued Guidance on FOIA Implementation
paragraphs: Within Justice, OIP has lead responsibility for providing guidance and  support to federal agencies on FOIA issues.  OIP first issued guidelines for  agency preparation and submission of annual reports in the spring of 1997  and has periodically issued additional guidance.  OIP also periodically  issues guidance on compliance, provides training, and maintains a  counselors service to provide expert, one-on-one assistance to agency  FOIA staff.  Further, it 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.
In addition to OIP guidance, the Attorney General has often issued a policy  memorandum at the beginning of a new administration.  Such policy  memorandums have been issued in 1977, 1981, 1993, and 2001.
The 1993 Attorney General memorandum established an overall  “presumption of disclosure” and promoted discretionary disclosures (when  an exemption might otherwise be used to withhold information) to achieve  “maximum responsible disclosure” under FOIA.  This guidance stated that  Justice policy would be to defend an agency’s use of a FOIA exemption to  withhold information only when the agency reasonably anticipated that  disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by that exemption (a  “foreseeable harm” standard).  Otherwise, where information might  technically or arguably fall within an exemption, the 1993 memorandum  indicated that it ought not to be withheld from a requester unless it was  necessary to do so.  The 1993 Attorney General guidance remained in effect  through fiscal year 2001. “…to carefully consider the protection of all such values and interests when making  disclosure determinations under the FOIA.  Any discretionary decision by your agency to  disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate  consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be  implicated by disclosure of the information.” “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in  part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless  they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability  of other agencies to protect other important records.”
OIP followed up on the 2001 Attorney General memorandum with guidance  focusing on protection of sensitive material pertaining to vulnerability  assessments, safeguard circumventions, and critical infrastructure  protections.
Following the events of September 11, the Information Security Oversight  Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and OIP  developed additional guidance for reviewing government information  regarding weapons of mass destruction and other information that could be  exploited to harm homeland security and public safety.  This guidance  addressed the protection of classified information, previously unclassified  or declassified information, and sensitive but unclassified information.   This guidance was issued along with a March 19, 2002, memorandum to the  heads of all departments and agencies from the White House Chief of Staff.
section_title: Relationship of FOIA and the Privacy Act
paragraphs: Although the laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the Privacy  Act permit individuals to seek first-party access to records about  themselves.  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.  After a  series of conflicting court decisions, Congress in 1984 clarified the  interrelationship between the Privacy Act and FOIA for all federal  agencies.  As a result, individuals may make first-party requests using the  procedures in the Privacy Act, FOIA, or both.  Subsequently, OIP 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  treatment may provide a possibly broader response to a first-party request.   As a result, agencies include first-party requests in their annual FOIA  reports (e.g., the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data include first- party requests for records of medical treatment).
section_title: No Clear Trends in Agency Processing Times, but Backlogs Are Growing
paragraphs: We were unable to identify any clear trends in processing time needed to  fulfill requests because agencies have made changes in how they report  these data.  These changes improved data quality but also reduced year-to- year comparability.  For most agencies–except VA–the number of requests  received and processed appears to have peaked in fiscal year 2000 and  declined slightly in fiscal year 2001.  Governmentwide, however, agency  backlogs of pending requests are substantial, and growing, indicating that  agencies are falling behind in processing requests.
subsections: section_title: No Clear Trends in Processing Times
paragraphs: The time required to process requests by track varies among agencies (see  table 1).  Agencies with single-track processing use a first-in/first-out basis  to process all requests.  As figure 2 shows, the median processing times for  agencies that used single-track processing are usually less than 50 days.   Agencies with multitrack processing designate requests as simple requests,  which require relatively minimal review, or complex requests, which are  more voluminous and/or require more search and review.  Agencies  generally reported median processing times of about 20 days for requests  processed in what they designated as their simple tracks; however, two  agencies reported much longer times (see fig. 3).  Median processing times  for complex requests were reported to be much higher than for simple  requests (see figs. 3 and 4).
Agencies process FOIA requests on an expedited basis when a requester  has shown a compelling need or urgency.  Agencies reported a wide range  of median processing times for expedited requests (see table 2).
We were unable to identify any clear trends in request-processing times  because of year-to-year changes in agency reporting.  Specifically, as shown  in table 1, agencies changed in terms of whether they reported at the  individual component level or agencywide, and also changed the tracks in  which they process requests.
Annual reports for agencies with decentralized FOIA operations are  changing, in terms of how workload data (request processing and  backlogs) are reported: component-based reporting, agencywide reporting,  or both.  These changes are a result of August 2001 guidance from OIP,  which stated that agencies that handle FOIA requests in a decentralized  manner should report their data at the component level, rather than only in  aggregated form.  The number of annual reports that include FOIA data by  component has increased from fiscal years 2000 to 2001 (see fig. 30 in app.  III).
As a result, several agencies with decentralized operations do not have  comparable median processing times for fiscal years 1999 through 2001.   For example:   For fiscal year 2001, five annual reports switched from aggregated,  agencywide data to reporting disaggregated data by component.  Two of  the annual reports from agencies with component-based reporting in  fiscal year 2001 (VA and the Department of the Treasury) also showed  aggregated agencywide data.  In fiscal year 2001, six annual reports do  not give a clear indication of agencywide progress in timeliness,  compared with previous years.
The Department of Defense (DOD) annual report switched from  aggregated reporting for fiscal year 1998, to both aggregated and  component based reporting for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and  back to aggregated reporting for fiscal year 2001.
This change in reporting will be helpful in the long run, however, because it  gives an overall look at an agency’s FOIA operations as well as an in-depth  look at its components’ FOIA operations.
During fiscal years 1999 through 2001, a few agencies also changed how  they process and report requests according to tracks.  For example, the  Department of Housing and Urban Development reported its processing  times for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 on a single track.  For fiscal year 2001,  it switched to multitrack processing and began reporting median times for  both simple and complex requests.
section_title: Volume of Requests Leveling Off, Except for VA
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2001, the agencies whose annual data we reviewed reported  receiving and processing a total of about 2 million FOIA requests, at an  aggregate cost of over $270 million.  Taken together, the agencies reported  receiving and processing more FOIA requests each succeeding year from  fiscal years 1999 through 2001 (see fig. 5).   However, the VA’s huge and  growing volume of requests—according to VA officials, these are mostly  first-party requests that are processed and recorded as both Privacy Act  and FOIA requests—masks the general picture for the rest of the  agencies.  Excluding VA, the total number of requests received by the  other agencies appears to have peaked in fiscal year 2000 and declined  slightly in fiscal year 2001 (see fig. 6).
Six agencies–VA, the Social Security Administration (SSA), Justice, the  Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOD, and the Department of Health  and Human Services (HHS)–consistently reported receiving the most FOIA  requests (see fig. 7).  VA received the largest number of requests for fiscal  years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.  The rank order among the other  agencies in the top six shifts somewhat from year to year, depending on  requesters’ interests.  For example:    The number of requests received by SSA increased dramatically  between fiscal years 1998 and 2000, moving SSA up in rank order.  The  SSA officials we interviewed attributed this to the growing popularity of  genealogy and requests by researchers for SSA records; this trend  appears to have continued in fiscal year 2001.
USDA had a relative increase in fiscal year 2000 that agency officials  attributed to inquiries regarding settlement of a major legal case, but the  fiscal year 2001 numbers are more in line with fiscal year 1999.
section_title: Growing Backlogs of Pending Cases
paragraphs: For the 24 agencies (not including VA), the total number of requests  pending at the end of the fiscal year continued to increase (see fig. 8), even  though the total number of FOIA requests they received declined from  fiscal years 2000 to 2001.  The backlog is generally increasing for about half  of the agencies (see fig. 9).
About two-thirds of the agencies have a backlog ratio of about 20 percent  or less (see fig. 10).  This means that the backlog is, on average, equivalent  to the number of requests the agency received in a period of about 10  weeks.  Backlog ratio is defined as the number of pending FOIA requests in  agency backlogs at the end of a fiscal year, compared with the numbers of  requests received in that fiscal year.  Some agencies, such as VA and USDA,  that have large volumes of requests may also have large numbers of  pending cases that correspond to relatively small backlog ratios.  For  example, for fiscal years 1999 through 2001, their backlogs were equivalent  to less than 5 percent of the requests they received for the year.  However,  agencies can also have relatively large backlog ratios–for example, in fiscal  year 2001, four agencies have ratios greater than 50 percent, and one of  these agencies has a backlog ratio greater than 100 percent.  This means  that the agency over 100 percent has more pending requests than the  number of requests received in a year.
Many agencies are processing fewer requests than they receive each year.   About a third of the 25 agencies had agency processing rates below 100  percent in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, indicating that they  processed fewer requests than they received each year (see fig. 11).  The  agency processing rate is defined as the ratio of requests processed in a  fiscal year to the number received, and requests processed can include  pending requests from previous years.  The Central Intelligence Agency  (CIA) was the only agency with a processing rate over 100 percent in each  year for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.  This means that CIA has  made steady progress in reducing its backlog of pending cases (see fig. 9).   Seventeen other agencies were able to make at least a small reduction in  their backlogs in 1 or more years between fiscal years 1998 and 2001.
A few agencies have backlogs with median ages of 1 year or more (see fig.  12).  Fourteen of the 25 agencies had backlogs with median ages of fewer  than 100 days in at least 2 years between fiscal years 1999 and 2001; the  remaining agencies had backlog ages of over 100 days (see fig. 13).
The FOIA officials we interviewed cited several reasons for their growing  backlogs.  These reasons included the increasing complexity of the  requests, a lack of staff resources for FOIA processing, and a lack of agency  information technology support.  Several agencies also noted these factors  in their annual reports.
section_title: Progress in On-Line Availability Is Continuing, but Additional Agency Attention Is Needed
paragraphs: Agencies have made progress in on-line availability of the materials  required by e-FOIA as well as in using the Web to make materials publicly  available and in incorporating Web site features that facilitate public access  to government information.  However, not all required materials were  available on line.  In addition, materials were not always easy to find, Web  site links to information were not always functioning properly, and some  materials that were previously available were no longer on line.  This  situation appears to reflect a lack of adequate attention and continuing  review by agency officials to ensure that these materials are available.
subsections: section_title: Continuing Progress in On- Line Availability
paragraphs: Agencies continue to make progress in making materials available on line.   As shown in figure 14, 18 agencies had all six of the required elements on  line during our 2002 Web site review period, compared with 15 agencies  during our 2000 review.  However, in 2002, seven agency Web sites did not  have all of the required elements.  During both reviews, all 25 agencies had  links to annual reports for recent years.  This year, all 25 agencies had  policy statements available on line.
Agencies are also making progress in using the Web to make materials  publicly available.  As shown in figure 15, 10 agencies had all eight of these  elements on their Web sites this year, compared with 9 agencies in 2000.   Also, as shown in figure 15, this year the number of agencies using the Web  to meet public availability requirements increased for four of the eight  elements, and all 25 agencies had two of the elements (fee schedule and  description of record locator system) on their Web sites.  Our current  review shows that 10 more agencies have an index to major information  systems on their Web sites than in our 2000 review.
Agencies are making more use of Web features that facilitate public access  to information into their Web sites.  As shown in figure 16, 9 agencies had  all seven of these features on their Web sites this year, compared with 4  agencies in 2000.  All 25 agencies had at least four of the seven features on  their Web sites during our current review.  Also as shown in figure 16, we  found that six of the seven features were on more agency Web sites this  year than in 2000.  The feature showing the most increase, compared with  our 2000 review, was the link to FOIA offices, with 6 more agencies having  this on their Web sites.
section_title: Additional Attention to Ease of Use and Continued Availability Needed
paragraphs: The Web sites varied in terms of how easy or difficult it was to find the  required elements as well as the elements that agencies made publicly  available on line.  Specifically, we were unable to find some of the elements  within the 30-minute time period we allowed for searching each agency  Web site.  We were unable to find up to two of the required elements on five  agency Web sites; these are indicated by a notation in figure 14 (note a).   Also, as indicated by a notation in figure 15 (note a), we did not find up to  two of the “publicly available” elements on four agency Web sites.  Web site  links for these elements were subsequently provided by the agencies during  their comment period.
During our current Web site review, four agency sites had links to elements  that the agency had intended to make available on line but that were not  functioning properly  (broken).  These 11 broken links are indicated by a  notation (note b) in figures 14 through 16.  Specifically:   One agency indicated that four of its Web site links to required elements,  which were broken during our review, had subsequently been repaired.
Three agencies indicated that broken links to publicly available  elements that were not working during our review had subsequently  been repaired.
One agency Web site had one broken link to information on obtaining  public services, which was subsequently repaired.
Three agencies restored their broken links in response to our assessment;  these are indicated by a notation in figure 15 (note c).
Certain agencies no longer had material that had been available during the  2000 review posted on their Web sites this year.  Specifically:  Four agencies had up to two of the required elements available on their  Web sites during our 2000 review but no longer had them available.
Eight agencies had one or two publicly available elements on their Web  sites during our 2000 review but no longer had them available.
One agency did have a FOIA link on the agency home page in 2000, but  not this year.
Agencies are not devoting sufficient attention to the on-line availability of  materials and ensuring that Web site content is adequately maintained,  including accuracy and currency of the material and Web site links.  A few  of the agency officials we spoke with during our review said that some  elements were not available on line because the agencies have had  difficulty in regularly updating their sites.  FOIA officials from several of  the agencies said that difficulties in obtaining Webmaster and other  technical support, restrictions on server space, and insufficient FOIA staff  are factors that make it difficult to post additional material on their Web  sites.
section_title: Views of FOIA Officials and FOIA Requesters Differ Regarding Impact of the Post- September 11 Environment
paragraphs: The FOIA officials and requesters viewed the impacts of the post- September 11 environment on e-FOIA implementation differently.  Except  for mail delays resulting from the anthrax attacks, the agency officials  characterized the effects of the September 11 terrorist attacks on  operations as relatively minor.  These officials focused on specific changes  in operations and compliance, rather than on general changes in their  agencies’ proactive information dissemination policies and practices.  In  contrast, requesters expressed considerably more concern, especially in a  broader sense, about public access to government information.   Requesters did not differentiate between specific concerns about FOIA  compliance and their more general concerns about government  information dissemination and public access.
The impacts of the post-September 11 environment and current policy  climate are ongoing.  Some of the impacts on how agencies respond to  FOIA requests, disseminate information to the public, and provide  electronic access to information will only surface in the future.  It is not yet  clear how current and prospective requesters will respond to changes in  the policy environment and to changes in agency practices.  According to  the requesters we met with, some portion of the long-term impact may be  masked by as-yet-unknown (or never-known) changes in the mix of FOIA  requests and by any perceived “chilling effect” on requesters that results in  some potential requests not being made.
subsections: section_title: FOIA Officials Reported Relatively Minor Changes to FOIA Operations
paragraphs: In six of eight agencies, the FOIA officials reported substantial delays in  receiving mailed requests, resulting from the anthrax situation.  These  agencies had large portions of their requester mail processed through  affected facilities.  The two remaining agencies did not report major delays;  for example, SSA’s mail does not go through the affected U.S. Postal  Service facilities.
The officials reported that they had not made major changes to their FOIA  processes or decision criteria since the period covered by our prior report,  including in response to September 11 and anthrax.  They also did not  report significant impacts on the FOIA-related content on their agencies’  Web sites.  The changes the officials described include the following  examples:   Following the October 12, 2001, Attorney General guidance on FOIA,  SSA no longer requires a memorandum on “harm” as rationale for not  making a discretionary disclosure.  DOD issued a new guidance  memorandum covering the new Attorney General guidance and use of  exemptions; the agency memorandum noted that discretionary  disclosures were no longer encouraged.
One agency component (USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service) reported that it had removed a frequently requested record  from its Web site because of industry concern over the safety of animal  researchers and research facilities that were identified in the document.   Other agencies’ FOIA officers reported redacting or modifying  frequently requested records (e.g., lists of government purchase card  holders) to avoid disclosing employees’ names and/or locations.
HHS reported receiving new security classification authority that would  allow the agency to withhold classified information if it were requested  under FOIA.
A few of the agencies’ FOIA officers were aware of general agency reviews  of Web site content as part of an overall review of information  dissemination (not specific to the agencies’ FOIA-related Web site content  or designated “electronic reading rooms”).   Several of the officials  reported that documents in general are being more closely scrutinized for  sensitivity and in a few cases are not being posted on line because of  security concerns (e.g., building blueprints).
section_title: FOIA Requesters Were Concerned with Public Access to Government Information
paragraphs: The eight FOIA requesters we contacted focused on what they perceived as  a changing policy climate, which some of them characterized as a shift  from a “right to know” standard (i.e., FOIA) to a “need to know” standard  (i.e., discretionary agency information dissemination).  The requesters  reported expecting more delays in the process, more use of exemptions,  and fewer discretionary disclosures.  These requesters also were  concerned about changes in access to government information on line as a  result of agency actions that they knew about–for example, certain public  interest groups continue to compile and publish lists of content that was  removed (“scrubbed”) from government Web sites after September 11.   However, they did not make clear distinctions–or know–whether the  government Web site scrubbing they knew about included materials that e- FOIA requires to be made available on line, as opposed to other agency  information products and publications.
The six requesters we met with, who advocate open public access to  government information, expressed strong concerns regarding what they  perceived as changes in the policy climate surrounding FOIA.  One focus of  their concern was how the March 2002 guidance from OIP and the  Information Security Oversight Office on protecting “sensitive but  unclassified” information would affect release of information in response  to requests.  Another focus of their concern was the potential for the new  policy guidance to discourage some potential requesters (e.g., reporters)  from trying to use FOIA.  They characterized this as a potential “chilling  effect” on requesters and anticipated that some requesters would therefore  turn to other means (e.g., use “leakers” or “whistleblowers”) to get  information about government activities.  The requesters we contacted  noted that the net effects of the post-September 11 environment on e-FOIA  implementation would be hard to quantify or measure and that some  effects would not be visible until specific FOIA cases are appealed and  litigated.
section_title: Justice Is Continuing Actions to Implement Our Recommendations
paragraphs: Justice’s OIP has acted to implement our recommendations, and agencies  gave us positive feedback about these efforts.  As a result, agencies have  made progress in improving data quality in their annual reports and in  making materials available on line.  However, numerous data anomalies  remain.  In addition, agencies have not maintained sufficient attention to  their Web sites to ensure that materials are easy to locate, that links to  information are functioning properly, and that access to FOIA-related  materials is continued over time.  Justice recognizes that agencies need to  make further improvements in the quality of their reporting and on-line  availability.  As a result, Justice is continuing its efforts to encourage  agencies to make these improvements.
subsections: section_title: Justice Has Taken Action on Our Recommendations
paragraphs: To improve the public’s access to government records and information, our  March 2001 report included recommendations that the Attorney General  direct Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) to  improve the reliability of agencies’ data in their FOIA annual reports by  providing guidance that addresses data quality issues and by reviewing  agencies’ annual report data for completeness and consistency and   encourage agencies to make all required materials available  electronically.
To address the recommendations in our March 2001 report, OIP augmented  its FOIA training programs–including the basic and advanced courses it  offers to attorneys and FOIA coordinators–to include subjects raised by the  recommendations.  OIP also has taken additional, specific actions to  address each of our recommendations.
FOIA officials gave us positive feedback about the quality of OIP’s training  courses and their FOIA guidance.  Most agency officials that we  interviewed stated that they would want OIP to offer greater training  capacity (i.e., more seats) for its courses, as well as training in more  convenient locations.
section_title: Justice Continues to Encourage Agencies to Improve Data Quality
paragraphs: In August 2001, OIP issued supplemental guidance, via FOIA Post, on how  to prepare annual agency FOIA reports.  This guidance, among other  things, reinforced that all agencies should use the standardized annual  report template for uniform agency reporting and outlined several methods  that agencies should use to confirm the accuracy of their data.  The Justice  guidance was straightforward about how agencies should calculate and/or  total their data to ensure accuracy.
For fiscal year 2001, fewer agency FOIA reports had data quality and  consistency problems, compared with fiscal year 2000.  Nevertheless, some  of the fiscal year 2001 reports did have anomalies, with no explanations  provided.  For example:   OIP’s annual report guidance states that the total of the categories, “total  grants,” “partial grants,” “denials,” and “other reasons for nondisclosure”  should equal the total number of processed requests.  But when we  reviewed fiscal year 2001 data for the 25 agencies, we found that three  agency annual reports included totals by disposition that did not equal  the number of total requests processed.  For the fiscal year 2000 annual  reports, 14 of the 25 annual reports had inconsistent totals.
OIP’s guidance is also clear that the total number of agency full-time- equivalent (FTE) staff reported should equal the sum of FTEs for full- time FOIA staff plus the total FTEs for staff working part time on FOIA.   In fiscal year 2000, FTEs reported in four annual reports did not total  accordingly.  In fiscal year 2001, only one annual report’s FTE total was  anomalous.
One annual report’s FOIA staffing level was much higher for fiscal year  1999 than for subsequent years.  This anomaly prompted us to contact  the agency, which provided us with a corrected value for total fiscal year  1999 FTEs that was smaller by a factor of six.  Another agency annual  report showed a fiscal year 2001 FTE figure that was only about one- third of the prior-year levels.  When contacted, this agency indicated that  the fiscal year 2001 figure was correct and that the anomaly was due to  FTE data that was inaccurately reported in the previous years.   However, a third agency’s annual report showed a much higher total  FTE figure for fiscal year 2000 than for fiscal years 1999 and 2001.  We  contacted the agency, which told us that the fiscal year 2000 figure  reflected an increase in requests associated with an ongoing legal  settlement; thus, the data had been reported correctly.
OIP’s guidance states that the total number of requests reported by track  in the “Median Processing Time” segment of the annual report should  equal the number of requests processed that year.  For fiscal year 2001,  we found that five agency annual reports included a number for total  number of requests processed by track that was different from the total  number of requests reported processed in the “Initial FOIA/PA Access  Requests” section of the report.  One of the annual reports showed a  substantial difference in these figures.  Six agencies’ annual reports had  this type of anomaly for fiscal year 2000.
OIP reported that it had implemented a process, beginning in the fall of  2000, to review all agency annual reports as they are submitted for posting  on OIP’s Web page.  OIP’s report review continued, taking our 2001 report  into account, for the fiscal year 2001 reports.  OIP told us that its staff  generally discusses issues or discrepancies it identifies with individual  agencies.  FOIA officials in four of the eight agencies we interviewed  indicated they had received such calls and did address OIP’s questions or  concerns about data quality; the rest said that they were not contacted by  OIP regarding data quality.  A couple of agencies that were contacted by  OIP told us that the data quality issues raised by OIP were different than  those that we found in our analysis.  Justice officials indicated that they  would continue to review agency reports and provide agencies with  feedback on data quality.
section_title: Justice Is Continuing to Encourage Agencies to Improve On-Line Availability
paragraphs: Immediately following issuance of our March 2001 report, OIP issued  supplementary guidance to all federal agencies on making the elements  required by e-FOIA electronically available.  This guidance reminded  agencies that “careful vigilance” in setting up and maintaining on-line  availability of materials is needed.  In the fall of 1996, following enactment  of e-FOIA, OIP guidance advised agencies to have Internet or Web sites to  meet on-line access requirements.  OIP issued recommendations on Web  site development to agencies in 1997 and 1998; OIP also spotlighted model  agency Web practices during that period.  The 1997-98 Web site guidance  noted the need for periodic review of FOIA-related Web pages to ensure  ease of use and maintain accurate content and functional Web site links.  In  1999, the Attorney General reinforced the importance of agency FOIA  officers and information resources management personnel working  together to implement e-FOIA efficiently.  OIP emphasized this by  disseminating the Attorney General’s memorandum through its FOIA  Update publication.
Agencies progressed in making elements available on line, but further  improvements are needed.  About a quarter of the agencies whose Web  sites we reviewed did not have all the materials required by e-FOIA  electronically available.  Some elements that were on the Web sites were  hard to find (see items indicated by a notation in figs. 14 and 15 (note a)).   Continued availability of elements remains an issue--most agency Web sites  have been updated, revised, and/or redesigned since our 2000 review.  Four  agency sites had broken links to information and some agency Web sites  included certain elements in 2000 that were missing in 2002.  These  problems indicate a lack of agency attention and review, especially in the  face of general agency Web site changes and modifications.
Justice recognizes the need for additional agency attention to e-FOIA Web  sites.  OIP officials told us that Justice is continuing, through training and  on-line publications, to reinforce the need for full e-FOIA compliance by  agencies and facilitate sharing of best practices among agencies.  These  activities include OIP’s Advanced FOIA Seminar and FOIA Administrative  Forum, which are each offered twice yearly, and include topics related to  implementation of OIP’s Web site guidance and agency best practices.  OIP  also spotlights agency success stories and best practices in “Web Site  Watch.”   This feature was included in OIP’s former publication, FOIA  Update, and OIP officials told us that it would be featured again in  forthcoming issues of its FOIA Post Web site.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although we were unable to identify any clear trends in the timeliness of  processing FOIA requests, the reporting changes that Justice has  encouraged agencies to make are improving the quality and usefulness of  the annual reports.  These changes should, over time, allow Congress and  the public better information about timeliness, which has been a long- standing issue.  However, the growing backlog of pending requests is a  concern.
On-line availability of FOIA materials continues to improve.  However,  agencies are not yet adequately ensuring that these materials are properly  maintained as agency Web sites change over time.  These materials  contribute to public understanding of agency FOIA procedures, the types  of records and information an agency produces, and how to formulate  requests.  Without continuous agency attention to on-line availability, such  public understanding may be impeded.
Regarding the events of September 11, FOIA officials and requesters view  the impacts very differently.  Nevertheless, the full impact of the post- September 11 environment will not be known for some time—until data  become available, trends are analyzed, and denials are litigated and  decided.  Understanding this impact will be important as the government  continues to oversee and refine its information access and dissemination  policies and guidance.
Justice’s efforts to implement our previous recommendations have resulted  in improvements to both the quality of agencies’ annual reports and on-line  availability of information.  However, data anomalies remain and not all  required information is easily and continuously available.  Justice  recognizes that agencies need to make further improvements in these  areas.  Its plans to continue review of annual reports for data quality and  encourage on-line availability of FOIA materials appear reasonable and  should help agencies make the needed improvements.  In view of these  continuing actions, we believe no further recommendations are warranted  at this time.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Acting Assistant  Attorney General for Administration or his designee.  On August 2, 2002, a  codirector of the Department of Justice’s OIP provided us with oral  comments on the draft, stating that the department generally agreed with  the report’s findings and conclusions.  The OIP official also made a number  of technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking Minority  Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the Ranking Minority  Member, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management,  and Intergovernmental Relations, House Committee on Government  Reform.  In addition, we will provide copies to the Director, Office of  Management and Budget, and the Attorney General.  We will make copies  available to others upon request.  This report is also available without  charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by E-mail at koontzl@gao.gov.  Key  contributors to this report were Joanne Fiorino, Michael P. Fruitman,  Laurence Gill, Katherine Howe, Min S. Lee, Glenn R. Nichols, David  Plocher, and Joan D. Winston.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Together, the 25 agencies included in our analysis of annual reports and  Web site content handle over 97 percent of the Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) requests governmentwide.  To the extent possible, we replicated  the assessment methodologies used for our March 2001 report.
To gauge agencies’ progress in processing requests, we analyzed the  workload data (through fiscal year 2001) included in the 25 agencies’  annual FOIA reports to assess trends in the volume of requests processed,  median processing times, and backlogs of pending cases.  All agency  workload data were self-reported in the annual reports submitted to the  Attorney General; we did not verify these data.  We also analyzed FOIA  processes and experiences in implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom  of Information Act (e-FOIA) Amendments in the eight major agencies we  focused on in our previous report since the period covered by that report.   To obtain this update, we used an interview guide and a standard set of  questions to interview FOIA officers in eight agencies: the Central  Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department  of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),  Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Veterans  Affairs (VA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA).  These include  the six agencies reporting the largest number of requests during the period  of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, plus two agencies identified as having  long-standing problems with backlogged requests.  We also used interview  guides to interview officials in Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy  (OIP) and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs for an update on FOIA coordination,  guidance, training, and support.
To assess the extent to which elements that e-FOIA requires to be available  on line were available on the 25 agency Web sites during May through June,  2002, we reviewed their department-level Internet and FOIA-related Web  site content.  We compared the results of our 2002 Web site review with a  similar review that we conducted in summer 2000 and reported on in March  2001.
Our Web site review looked for a total of 21 target elements.  Six of these  are elements that e-FOIA requires agencies to make available on line.  Eight  are elements that the law requires agencies to make publicly available  (although not necessarily on line); we included them in our review to  assess the extent to which agencies are using the Web to make them  publicly available.  The remaining 7 elements, which OIP and OMB  guidance also encourage agencies to incorporate, are features that  facilitate public access to government information via their Web sites.  We  also assessed the presence of these features as part of our Web site review.
The results of our Web site review indicate whether material corresponding  to an element was available on the agency Web site.  We did not evaluate  the merits or adequacy of this material.  For each of the 21 target elements,  we determined whether the material was   available–that is, we found material corresponding to the element;  partially available–that is, we found a portion of material corresponding   not found–that is, we did not find material corresponding to the   not applicable–that is, for the particular agency.
During our spring 2002 Web site assessment, we attempted to locate the  target elements by starting from the department-level home page and/or the  FOIA-related sections of the Web site.  If an item could not readily be found  via these pages, we attempted to locate the item in other sections of the  Web site, starting from the main home page or other associated Web pages  (e.g., reviewing an agency’s Office of General Counsel section to look for  agency final opinions).  Our review had a time limit of 30 minutes per Web  site.  During June 2002, the 25 agencies each had an opportunity to verify  and comment on a draft assessment of their Web sites.
Our agency interviews included questions on the impact of the post- September 11 environment.  To explore requesters’ perspectives on this  subject, we conducted literature reviews and contacted selected members  of the FOIA requester community.  The eight members of the requester  community we contacted, most of whom had also been identified during  our previous study, are widely recognized for their expertise and  involvement in FOIA issues and advocate public access to government  information.  According to the requesters, many of them make relatively  complex requests involving significant agency search and review,  frequently of large amounts of material.  We invited these requesters to  share their perspectives on a standard set of topics: annual agency FOIA  reports, measures of “timeliness” in FOIA responses, experiences with  different agency approaches to e-FOIA, usefulness of the FOIA elements on  agencies’ Web sites, pre- and post-September 11 concerns regarding e-FOIA  implementation, and their “top 2” concerns regarding e-FOIA  implementation and/or FOIA overall.  The information we obtained was  anecdotal, and we did not verify the data.  Requester community members  from the following organizations met with us and/or provided written  information:  Federation of American Scientists (written comments, Apr. 8, 2002);  Access Reports, American Library Association, Cohn & Marks  (representing American Society of Newspaper Editors), OMB Watch,  and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (group meeting, Apr.  9, 2002);   Electronic Privacy Information Center (interview, Apr. 18, 2002); and   National Security Archive (written comments, May 13, 2002).
To determine what actions Justice has taken on the recommendations in  our March 2001 report, we interviewed OIP officials and analyzed new  guidance and other documentation issued by that office to assist in agency  e-FOIA implementation.  We explored the efficacy of Justice’s actions  through our interviews with the eight major agencies and OIP and through  our analysis of the 25 agencies’ annual FOIA reports and our Web site  review.  We also interviewed officials at OMB.
Our work was performed from January through June, 2002, in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Overview of Agency FOIA Processing
paragraphs: The process begins when an agency receives a written FOIA request from a  requester, who could be any member of the public or an organization.   From that point, the request goes through several phases, which include:  processing the request letter, searching for and retrieving records,  preparing records for release, approving the release of records, and  releasing the records to the requester.  A request being processed is often  referred to as a “case.”  Agencies may deny access to requested material  (e.g., by withholding records or redacting information) that falls within the  statutory exemption categories shown in table 3.
Some FOIA requests are relatively simple to process, for example, requests  for specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the  appropriate agency office, with no redaction required and minimal fees.   Other requests require more extensive processing, depending on the  complexity of the request, the volume of information involved, the need to  route the request to the appropriate offices, the need for a FOIA officer to  work with program offices 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).  FOIA  processing, especially review of classified, sensitive, or privacy-related  material, is labor-intensive.
Agency FOIA offices also face several internal challenges to processing  FOIA requests rapidly.  The FOIA officers we interviewed reported a  number of processing challenges, including a lack of information  technology support from the agency, insufficient staff, inefficient record  keeping that hinders information retrieval, and unresponsive program  offices (resulting from a lack of available staff time or a lack of knowledge  about FOIA).
Agency processes for handling FOIA requests vary widely.  While some  agencies have centralized FOIA processing in one main office, other  agencies have decentralized their FOIA processing and have separate FOIA  offices for each agency component and field office.  Agencies also vary in  how they allow requesters to make FOIA requests.  Depending on the  agency, requesters can submit requests by telephone, fax, letter, E-mail,  and/or the Web.  Finally, not all FOIA offices respond to requesters in the  same way.  A few of the agency FOIA officers we interviewed told us that  their agencies do not routinely provide the statutory 20-day determination  notification to requesters, because that extra step takes time away from the  actual processing of the request and/or because they expect to fulfill the  request in close to 20 days.  Other officials told us that they notify  requesters that their requests have been received and are being processed.
FOIA officers in six of the eight agencies told us that for internal  management purposes, they do not usually evaluate their agencies’  progress using e-FOIA’s reporting metric—the median processing time.   Instead, those agencies use other measures, such as the number of requests  they have pending or the number of requests that have been pending over a  set number of days (e.g., cases over 30 days, 60 days, or 90 days).  Agency  FOIA officers said that the only time they calculate the median processing  time is when they are preparing their annual reports.
section_title: Further Details Regarding Agency Workload Analysis
paragraphs: Agency annual FOIA reports also include data on the disposition of  processed requests, the use of exemptions to justify withholding  information, the outcome of administrative appeals, the fees collected from  requesters, the costs the agency attributes to FOIA processing, and the  number of full-time equivalents (FTE) devoted to FOIA processing.  Annual  reports from agencies with decentralized operations increasingly include  component-level reporting.
subsections: section_title: Disposition of Requests
paragraphs: Most of the 25 agencies’ FOIA requests resulted in agency responses that  were full or partial grants of the requested information (see figs. 17 and 18).   Figure 19 shows full grants as a percentage of total dispositions for the 25  agencies, where total dispositions include full grants, partial grants,  denials, and other nondisclosures (e.g., because of withdrawn requests, no  records found, fee-related reasons, etc.)  Three agencies have full-grant  ratios of over 90 percent.  Only 4 have total grant ratios under 40 percent  for all years.  Figures 20, 21, and 22 show partial grants, denials, and  nondisclosures for other reasons as a percentage of total dispositions for  the 25 agencies.  We did not verify the data provided in the agencies’ annual  FOIA reports.
section_title: Use of Exemptions
paragraphs: The exemptions most commonly reported by the 25 agencies were the  privacy-related exemptions: exemption 6 and exemption 7(C).  Figure 23  aggregates the reported exemptions used to justify denials or partial grants  of requested information (see table 3 in app. II).  24 shows aggregated data on the disposition of appeals for the 25 agencies.
section_title: Fees
paragraphs: Fees reported as collected from FOIA requesters typically amount to only a  few percentages of overall costs.  In many cases, fees are not charged  because they are minimal or because fees have been reduced or waived by  the agency according to statute and guidance.  Table 4 summarizes the  FOIA-related FTEs, costs, and fees collected, as reported by the 25  agencies.  Figure 25 illustrates the costs reported for the agencies, and  figure 26 compares the fees that agencies reported collecting with their  reported FOIA costs.  We did not verify the cost and fee data included in the  agencies’ annual FOIA reports.
section_title: Costs
paragraphs: Agencies’ average costs per FOIA request vary widely.  Figure 27 indicates  agencies’ average costs per request, calculated from the data in their  annual reports.  As figure 28 shows, including the VA requests in a 25- agency, average-cost-per-request calculation yields a figure less than half  the average cost per request calculated for the other 24 agencies.  VA’s  average cost per request is under $50, while the other agencies’ average  costs vary widely.
section_title: Staffing (FTE)
paragraphs: The average number of FTEs reported per request also varies widely by  agency. Figure 29 compares the agencies’ FTE-per-request ratios,  calculated from annual FOIA report data. There is considerable variation in  the FTE-per-request ratios. There is also variation in the nature of the FOIA  requests that agencies and their components receive and the extent of  search, review, and redaction required. We did not verify the FTE data  provided in the agencies’ annual FOIA reports.
section_title: Component-Level Reporting
paragraphs: Following new OIP guidance, agencies that use decentralized processing  have increasingly reported annual data by component.  Figure 30 shows  that the number of annual reports that include workload data by  component has increased from fiscal years 2000 to 2001.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs