Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness
Published: 2009-03-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to generally provide the public with access to government information. In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, to improve agencies' FOIA processing. The order required each agency to review its operations and develop plans for improvement. Since its establishment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has accounted for a major and increasing portion of pending FOIA requests governmentwide. While it has reported achieving a notable reduction since 2006, DHS still possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests in the government. GAO was asked to determine (1) what key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. To do this, GAO reviewed DHS's improvement plan; examined policies, procedures, and other documentation; and interviewed agency officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. DHS developed an improvement plan that focused on eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and deploying more advanced technology. Further, the DHS Privacy Office has initiated actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight of FOIA operations throughout the department's component agencies, including developing a departmentwide handbook, monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting relevant training for employees. As a result, DHS has reported reducing its backlog by about 24 percent since implementing its plan. However, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA processing across the department. Specifically, implementation of the following practices could facilitate the processing of information requests at a number of its major components: (1) Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help reduce the backlog of open requests. (2) Component-specific training. Component-specific training could enhance the efficiency of processing within component agencies. (3) Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online access to information concerning the status of their requests could contribute to better customer service and higher staff productivity. (4) Electronic dissemination of records. Releasing records in an electronic format could provide cost savings and increase efficiency. (5) Electronic redaction. By adopting electronic redaction more broadly, DHS may be able to reduce the staff time otherwise spent manually redacting records, while also improving the consistency of its responses to requests. By implementing these practices--which are already being used by certain DHS components and other agencies--across major DHS components, the department could further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer service, and respond to information requests in a more timely fashion

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies  must generally provide the public with access to government information,  thus enabling them to learn about government operations and decisions.  Specific requests by the public for information through the act have led to  the disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the government,  as well as the identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs,  and serious health hazards.
In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, aimed at  improving agencies’ disclosure of information consistent with FOIA. The  focus of the order was to achieve measurable improvements in processing  (including reducing the backlog of overdue requests) and to reform  programs that did not produce appropriate results. Among other things,  this order required each agency to review its FOIA operations and develop  improvement plans; each agency was to submit a report to the Attorney  General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget  summarizing the results of the agency’s review and including a copy of its  plan. These plans were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and  timetables, by which the agency head was to evaluate the agency’s success  in implementing the plan. Agencies were also required to include a section  in their fiscal year 2006 and 2007 annual reports reporting on progress in  implementing their plans.
A major focus of the executive order was the reduction or elimination of  “backlog”: requests for records that have not been responded to within the  statutory time limit—generally 20 working days. (For clarity, we refer to  this as “backlog of overdue requests” or “overdue requests” to distinguish  them from “pending requests,” which are all open requests, whether or not  they have been responded to within the statutory time limit.) The  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accounts for a major portion of  pending requests governmentwide and possesses the largest backlog of  overdue requests in the government.
In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees on  Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of DHS’s FOIA  program. As agreed, our specific objectives were to determine (1) what  key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what  opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness  of FOIA operations across the department.
To determine the key steps DHS has taken to enhance its program, we  reviewed the goals contained in the DHS FOIA improvement plan and  progress made on these goals, as reported in DHS’s annual reports. We  also assessed actions taken to achieve these goals at seven major DHS  component agencies—those with the largest number of pending cases at  the end of fiscal year 2007. These components are U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the  Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Citizenship  and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United States Secret Service  (USSS), and the United States Coast Guard.
To determine what opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency  and cost-effectiveness of operations across the department, we analyzed  documentation from DHS regarding program structure, procedures, and  resources. We also reviewed similar documentation from the Department  of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State—two agencies with types of  information similar to DHS—and compared their programs with those of  DHS. A more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and  methodology is provided in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to March 2009 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
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), the  government required individuals to demonstrate “a need to know” before  granting the right to examine federal records. FOIA established a “right to  know” standard, under which an organization or any member of the public  could receive access to information held by federal agencies without  demonstrating a need or reason. The “right to know” standard shifted the  burden of proof from the individual to government agencies and required  agencies to provide proper justification when denying requests for access  to records.
FOIA provides the public with access to government information either  through “affirmative agency disclosure”—publishing information in the  Federal Register or on the Internet or making it available in reading  rooms—or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public requests  for records are the best known type of disclosure, and require agencies to  promptly provide records in any readily producible form or format  specified by the requester.
Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act  prescribes nine specific categories of information that can be exempt from  disclosure, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and certain  confidential commercial or financial information, certain personnel and  medical files, and certain law enforcement records. When agencies deny  all or part of a request, the act requires that agencies notify requesters of  the reasons for the adverse determination and grants requesters the right  to appeal the decision.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the primary source of FOIA oversight  and policy guidance for agencies. Within the department, the Office of  Information and Privacy (OIP) has lead responsibility for providing  guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. OIP issues a  guide addressing various aspects of the act and conducts a variety of  related training programs for personnel across the government.
subsections: section_title: Executive Order Led to Activities Aimed at Improving FOIA Operations
paragraphs: On December 14, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392,  setting forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA  administration. The order directed agencies to provide requesters with  courteous and appropriate service, as well as ways to learn about the  FOIA process, the status of their requests, and the public availability of  other agency records. The order also instructed agencies to process  requests efficiently, achieve measurable process improvements (including  a reduction in the backlog of overdue requests), and reform programs that  did not produce appropriate results. A major focus of the order was for  agency plans to include specific actions to eliminate or reduce any backlog  of overdue requests.
To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that  agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their programs.  The officers were directed to review their operations and develop  improvement plans to ensure that administration of the act was in  accordance with applicable law, as well as with the policy set forth in the  order. By June 2006, agencies were to submit reports that included the  results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans.
In April 2006, OIP posted guidance to assist federal agencies in  implementing the order’s requirements for reviews and improvement  plans. The guidance suggested several potential areas that agencies might  consider when conducting their reviews, such as enhanced training,  centralization of administration, automation of request tracking,  automation of electronic records dissemination, and improved records  redaction.
In order to extend the backlog reduction efforts beyond the time frame of  the executive order, in September 2007, OIP posted guidance to agencies  on submitting backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and  2010. Any agency that had a request or appeal pending beyond the  statutory time limit at the end of fiscal year 2007 was to establish backlog  reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. In addition, in June  2008, OIP posted guidance requiring all agencies that had not made  progress in reducing their backlogs over the previous 2 years to prepare  backlog reduction plans.
On December 31, 2007, the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our  National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) was enacted.  This law amended FOIA by, among other things, addressing the time limits  for agencies to act on requests, requiring agencies to designate chief FOIA  officers, requiring that agencies assign a tracking number to each request  requiring more than 10 days to process, and requiring agencies to establish  a telephone line or Internet service that requesters could use to determine  the status of their request.
section_title: An Overview of the FOIA Process at Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Although the specific procedures for handling requests vary among  agencies, the major phases in the process are similar across the  government: receiving the request, logging and scoping the request,  searching for and retrieving potentially responsive records, preparing  records for release, performing a final review, and releasing records to the  requester. Figure 1 depicts the process, from the receipt of a request  through the release of records.
The process begins when an agency receives (whether by mail, phone, fax,  or over the Internet) a request for federal records. A staff member logs the  request in the agency’s tracking system, and then reviews the request to  determine its scope, estimates fees, and provides an initial response to the  requester. Next, the staff searches for responsive records, which may  include searching for records at multiple locations and program offices.  After they are located, the records are reviewed to confirm that they are  within the scope of the request.
The staff then prepares records by removing any nonreleasable  information based upon the statutory exemptions—a process known as  redaction. Once records have been prepared, the staff calculates any  applicable fees for research time and reproduction costs. After redaction  and fee calculation, the staff submits the records for a final review,  possibly by the agency’s general counsel. If records pass this final review,  the agency generates a response letter summarizing actions regarding the  request and releases the records to the requester.
Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for  specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the  appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive processing,  depending on their complexity, the volume of information involved,  whether the agency FOIA office is required to work with offices with  relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the  requirement for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the  responsive material, the requirement to communicate with the requester  about the scope of the request, and the requirement to communicate with  the requester about the fees that will be charged for fulfilling the request  (or whether fees will be waived).
The organizational structure of an agency’s program can affect its  processing procedures. While some agencies centralize processing in one  main office, others receive and process requests at the division or field  office level. The structure influences how and where requests are received  by the agency, how an agency searches for responsive records, the  availability of relevant subject matter experts, and how an agency  monitors the status of requests.
section_title: The DHS FOIA Program Is Largely Decentralized
paragraphs: Established in 2003, DHS is responsible for leading the effort to secure the  United States by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and protecting  against, and responding to, threats and hazards to the nation. To  accomplish its mission, DHS incorporated 22 separate federal agencies  and organizations, including FEMA (formerly an independent agency) and  the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly part of DOJ). Several  of these agencies remained separate component agencies within DHS,  while others were reorganized into new DHS components. The functions  of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, were divided  among three DHS components: CBP, ICE, and USCIS.
FOIA processing is implemented separately within each of the major DHS  component agencies. At the department level, the Privacy Office  coordinates agencywide implementation by developing policy, performing  oversight of component operations, providing training, and preparing the  annual FOIA report. The Privacy Office also processes requests related to  DHS headquarters operations. However, all other processing of requests is  handled by agency components, which staff and operate their own offices.  FOIA officers within these components are responsible for managing and  implementing their respective operations, as well as defining their  administrative structures.
The scale and performance of FOIA processing vary across the  department. The components with the largest reported number of pending  cases at the end of fiscal year 2007 included CBP, FEMA, ICE, TSA, USCIS,  USSS, and the United States Coast Guard. These components are also  among those to have received and processed the largest number of  requests in fiscal year 2007.
section_title: DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program
paragraphs: In response to Executive Order 13392, DHS and its major components  have taken steps to enhance the department’s program. DHS developed an  improvement plan that included goals focused on eliminating its backlog  of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and  deploying advanced technology. In addition, the DHS Privacy Office  initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight  of individual components, such as developing a departmentwide  handbook, completing file reviews at each component, monitoring  monthly data processing statistics, and instituting training for affected  employees. As a result, several of the components have reported  decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. Specifically, three  components reported achieving large reductions in their backlogs.
subsections: section_title: The DHS Improvement Plan Outlined Goals for Eliminating Backlog and Improving Training and Technology
paragraphs: In January 2007, DHS submitted an improvement plan that focused on  eliminating the backlog of overdue requests, enhancing education and  training, and implementing technological advancements. In order to  formulate its plan and specific goals, DHS surveyed each component and  office on specific issues relating to FOIA operations, such as staffing  levels, electronic processing capabilities, training opportunities and  requirements, and impediments other than staffing that contribute to  backlogs.
To reduce its backlog, DHS established goals that included hiring  additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at USCIS,  meeting with an important requester group (the American Immigration  Lawyers Association) to discuss file processing and customer service  enhancements, and establishing a monitoring program under which all  components submitted weekly and monthly data to the Chief FOIA  Officer.
Goals related to education and training included establishing a renewed  emphasis on the importance of FOIA and instituting semiannual FOIA  officer meetings; they also required components and offices to provide all  employees with information about their obligations and all professional  staff who spend more than half of their time implementing the act to take  annual training offered by DOJ’s OIP.
Lastly, goals for technological improvements included identifying a Web- based case management software application with electronic tracking  capabilities, setting a recommended departmentwide standard for  processing software, requiring all component offices to have a Web site or  a link to the departmental FOIA Web site from their component home  page, and increasing proactive disclosure of documents on component and  office Web sites to allow public access to records without submitting a  formal request.
section_title: The DHS Privacy Office Has Taken Steps to Improve Departmental Oversight of Its FOIA Operations
paragraphs: In response to the executive order and to elevate the importance of the act  at the department level, the Chief FOIA Officer established a new position  of Deputy Chief FOIA Officer within the DHS Privacy Office. This  position was established to, among other things, assure program oversight  over all of the components.
The Privacy Office initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance  and provide oversight to individual components. For example, the office  developed a handbook for use departmentwide. The document, which is  undergoing internal review, establishes policies and procedures that each  component must follow. In addition, the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer and  the Associate Director of Disclosure Policy and FOIA Program  Development visited each component for an informal file review. They  reviewed select cases at each component in order to ensure compliance  with department policies and identify any processing problems. If a  problem was detected, they revisited those components to help develop a  plan of action to remedy the problem.
In an effort to reduce backlog, the DHS improvement plan required all  components to submit monthly data reports. These reports included the  number of open cases, time ranges of the open cases, the date of the oldest  request, the number of staff, and the number of requests received and  processed that month. After receiving the reports, the Deputy Chief FOIA  Officer was to notify each component via e-mail regarding their progress  against backlog goals set in response to DOJ guidance.
Lastly, to ensure compliance with department policies, the Privacy Office  has set requirements for training. The DHS improvement plan stated that  education and training would ensure a consistent interpretation of  common aspects of the administrative process. Accordingly, it required  that all components make available “FOIA 101” training for employees  with FOIA-related duties. The training includes an overview of the history  of the act, DHS’s FOIA organization chart, information on the life cycle of  a request, staff responsibilities, and information on exemptions. In  addition, all staff that spent more than 50 percent of their work time on  FOIA were required to take annual training offered by DOJ’s OIP or an  equivalent.
section_title: Several DHS Components Have Reported Reductions in Their Backlogs of Overdue Requests as a Result of Departmental Improvement Efforts
paragraphs: Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392  and DHS’s improvement plan, three of the seven major components have  reported progress in decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. As of  October 17, 2008, the overall departmental backlog has been reduced  about 24 percent since September 2006. Factors contributing to this  reduction include enhanced oversight by the Privacy Office and program  modifications instituted by individual components, such as centralizing  operations, hiring additional personnel, and technology improvements.  Table 1 shows the reported overall DHS reduction in overdue requests and  the changes in overdue requests experienced by each of its major  components.
USCIS has reported a substantial reduction in its backlog. Despite having  one of the highest backlogs within the department and the federal  government, it has reduced its backlog by 18,949 requests (about 21  percent) since September 2006. Component officials attributed the  reduction to the centralization of their FOIA program, hiring of additional  staff, and the elimination of 23,179 requests whose requesters did not have  continued interest in obtaining the information. In October 2007, USCIS  completed a transition from 50 decentralized FOIA offices to a single  centralized office. The centralization enabled them to maximize their  resources and focus on reducing their backlog of overdue requests. The  component has also hired 10 additional staff since the centralization. In  addition, in July 2008, USCIS awarded a backlog reduction contract  intended to eliminate its backlog within 15 to 18 months from the award of  the contract. The contract is to provide 74 staff that will be tasked to  process the oldest requests until the entire backlog is exhausted.
Likewise, ICE has also reported a considerable reduction in its backlog of  overdue requests. According to agency officials, an almost 100 percent  reduction has been achieved since September 2006, reducing the number  of overdue requests by about 7,300. The component took a variety of  actions, including centralizing its program and implementing a new  electronic tracking system. The FOIA Officer stated that centralization of  the program allowed for greater consistency in processing procedures and  the use of technology. In addition, ICE was able to eliminate  approximately 1,200 overdue requests by determining that the requesters  were no longer interested in them.
As part of its operational improvements in FOIA processing, DHS officials  reported that they had improved the way the department handles requests  relating to Alien-File (A-File) records, which are processed by USCIS and  ICE. Both components experienced a large reduction of their backlogs by  streamlining the approach used for processing these requests. Previously,  a major hurdle these components faced was the sharing of the existing 55  million hardcopy A-Files. Because the A-Files contain both benefit and  enforcement documents, an individual file may be in the possession of  either component at any given time. When either one of the components  received a request for the contents of a file, that component had to locate  the file and determine whether it should have responsibility for processing  the request. After November 2006, the ownership of all A-Files was  transferred to USCIS. In order to facilitate faster processing, ICE provided  USCIS with a processing guide containing the policies, procedures, and  background information necessary to enable USCIS to process A-File  requests on behalf of ICE. This process eliminated the need to refer  records to ICE for review and determination of releasability, which could  result in unnecessary delays.
USSS reported a 23 percent reduction in its backlog of overdue requests  since September 2006, reducing the number of overdue requests by 170.  Officials stated that this reduction was mainly due to the addition of staff  supporting the FOIA mission and the creation of a task force, consisting of  employees from each directorate, to focus on closing overdue requests  over a 3-month span.
section_title: Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing within Its Components
paragraphs: DHS components and other federal agencies have identified key practices  they have adopted to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their  request-processing operations. These key practices include internal  monitoring and oversight to help reduce component backlogs, specialized  training within components, providing requesters with online access to  information concerning the status of their requests, releasing records in an  electronic format, and the use of electronic redaction.
subsections: section_title: Internal Monitoring and Oversight Could Help Reduce DHS Components’ Backlogs
paragraphs: Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components,  implementing an internal monitoring and oversight process can help  agencies better track their processing efficiency and thus reduce their  backlogs of requests. These organizations have found that the ability to  monitor the status of incoming requests can greatly enhance their ability  to meet the statutory time limit to respond to them because it can help  reduce the amount of time needed to determine the location of responsive  records and retrieve them for processing. Close monitoring helps ensure  that requests and their associated records do not languish unattended at  any given step in the process.
DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has reported that it  implemented an oversight and monitoring process for its FOIA program. It  operates a centralized program, where all requests are received at the  main office. Responsive records may be located at any one of the 54  immigration courts throughout the United States. According to DOJ  officials, in order to facilitate a timely and efficient response from the  immigration courts, at the end of each day, the main office automatically  generates and sends a report to any immigration court that has been  identified as possessing responsive records for an outstanding request.  The officials stated that by closely monitoring those courts that were slow  in sending responsive records, it has been able to obtain records in a more  timely manner.
Likewise, within DHS, three of the seven major DHS components have  reported implementing mechanisms for monitoring the processing of  information requests. For example, USCIS operates a centralized FOIA  program from the National Records Center in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. All  requests are received at the center and imported into an electronic  tracking system. The system allows staff to track the status and  whereabouts of each request from receipt until it has been closed. In  addition, the component uses bar codes to associate records with a  physical location. As a result, files can be rapidly located at the center or  at any other location. The chief program official stated that the use of the  bar codes greatly sped up the process of locating responsive records for  processing. In these cases, staff can identify the location of records using  the bar code and contact the appropriate office to obtain copies for  processing. In addition, USCIS has staff dedicated to the continual  monitoring of outstanding records. Each month, USCIS sends reports to  its field sites and other components that have outstanding records in order  to expedite the process. According to program officials, these monitoring  and oversight mechanisms have contributed to the reduction of the  backlog of overdue requests.
ICE officials also reported that they have implemented monitoring and  oversight mechanisms. The component operates a centralized program,  where all of the requests are received at the main office. After a request is  received, staff input it into a tracking system, and then it is assigned to the  appropriate office for processing. The tracking system allows staff to  obtain key information about the request, such as the responsible office,  the date by which the records need to be received at the main office, and if  applicable, the number of days by which the request is overdue. In  addition, the program director generates a weekly report that identifies  any requests that have not been responded to within the allotted time and  sends messages to notify program offices of their overdue responses. In  order to facilitate timely and efficient retrieval of records, program offices  have the ability to provide their responses via e-mail to the main office.  The program director stated that this monitoring process and the ability of  program offices to send responsive records by e-mail have greatly  improved the timeliness of responses to information requests and reduced  the backlog of overdue requests.
In technical comments on a draft of this report, USSS stated that it has a  system for tracking due dates for incoming requests and also has the  ability to generate reports to monitor overdue requests to ensure timely  responses.
In contrast to these examples, the other major components have not yet  implemented comparable monitoring and oversight mechanisms. For  example, although CBP, FEMA, and TSA operate centralized FOIA  programs where all requests are received or tracked at one location, none  currently has a mechanism for obtaining responsive records from field  offices expeditiously.
Lastly, because the Coast Guard operates its program in a decentralized  fashion—each of its 1,300 units is able to directly receive and respond to  requests—it has limited ability to monitor the status of individual requests  or whether responsive records have been located and retrieved. The Chief  of the Office of Information Management estimated that between two- thirds and three-fourths of all requests are received and answered in field  offices. The Coast Guard currently does not have an oversight mechanism  to monitor the timeliness of processing at its individual units.
Given the success of using monitoring and oversight processes at DOJ and  two DHS components, the department may be able to improve  responsiveness to requests and reduce backlogs at other major  components by establishing mechanisms to efficiently monitor and  oversee internal processing of information requests within those  components.
section_title: Component-Specific Training Could Help Enhance the Efficiency of FOIA Processing
paragraphs: Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components,  component-specific training—which goes beyond general training to  address processing details that are unique within each of the  components—can help ensure consistent administration of the FOIA  process within each component. The department improvement plan  acknowledges that specialized training is essential for processing  professionals. Further, DOJ’s OIP highlighted the need for enhanced  training in its guidance on activities required by Executive Order 13392.  The guidance states that the issuance of Executive Order 13392 is a good  occasion for agencies to, among other things, consider whether they are  conducting their own training sessions with sufficient regularity.
While certain basic aspects of FOIA implementation are the same  throughout a large department such as DHS, other aspects of the process  can vary in significant ways across the department’s components. For  example, each component possesses different types of records; some  agencies may have primarily first-party records (such as USCIS’s A-Files),  while others may have more records relating to investigations (such as the  Coast Guard’s Marine Investigations). Further, component agencies are  likely to utilize specific exemptions that directly relate to the records they  possess. For example, some may frequently use an exemption that focuses  on an agency’s internal personnel rules and practices, while others may  more often use an exemption for information compiled for law  enforcement purposes.
Two component agencies within DOJ reported utilizing component- specific training for their staff to enhance the efficiency of their processing  information requests. Specifically, according to agency officials, the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides its new staff with entry- level, basic, and advanced training programs. The entry-level staff undergo  a 6-week training regimen that includes an overview of the type of records  at the FBI, how to scope requests and search for records, and how to use  the bureau’s tracking system. After the staff complete the entry-level  training, they are required to take one of two additional training classes,  depending on their job responsibilities. Advanced training is also available  on litigation support and prepublication review. FBI officials stated that, in  their opinion, the training program was responsible for the retention of  qualified staff because the progression and challenges presented by the  various levels of training allowed staff to develop their FOIA expertise.
Likewise, DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys offers a  specialized training conference for FOIA staff at each of the U.S. Attorney  offices. The training conference includes explanations of FOIA  exemptions and how they are used, a discussion of the intake process,  examples of forms used in the process, and a discussion of the FOIA  contacts’ role. In addition, officials stated that the Executive Office  records its training conference and makes it available online for staff to  view. Each new field office employee is required to take the training.
Five components within DHS have similarly implemented in-house,  component-specific FOIA training for their staff:    USCIS provides newly hired staff with a mandatory training program that  includes guidance tailored to its program. In a report written in response  to the Executive Order, the USCIS’s Ombudsman recognized that frequent  and useful training for new and existing staff had been lacking and  recommended that a training program be developed and implemented for  all staff to ensure effective compliance. In response to the  recommendation, USCIS developed a mandatory in-house training  program that includes hands-on modules for processing and approving  information requests. The new program included a focus on rules  regarding exemptions as applied to USCIS, analysis of typical case studies,  and procedures for handling documents from other components, such as  ICE. The Chief of the USCIS FOIA Program stated that staff who had  participated in the new training program appeared more prepared to  respond to requests, particularly regarding the application of exemptions.
The Coast Guard provides an annual specialized training seminar to all  FOIA Coordinators and personnel who process requests. The training  includes a description of records, good record management practices,  overview of exemptions, multiunit responses, and search standards.
ICE hosts a specialized “virtual-university” training module, which  includes information on how to process a request, what files are covered  by FOIA, and what may be withheld from disclosure under an exemption.
TSA offers a specialized online training module, which describes typical  types of requested records and how to process a request.
CBP provides an 8-hour training class several times a year where staff are  introduced to the procedures involved in responding to a request in a  timely manner, how to create a case file, how to conduct an adequate  search for records that are responsive to the request, and how to employ  the nine exemptions for CBP records. Additionally, they also provide  tailored training sessions to offices that handle certain specialized records.
In contrast, two major DHS components do not make specialized,  component-specific training available to their staff. USSS and FEMA  provide only on-the-job training or “generic” training offered by outside  contractors. For example, USSS provides on-the-job training and  shadowing and mentoring programs for its staff, who are required to  attend outside training, such as the DOJ OIP training, American Society of  Access Professionals conferences, and classes at the United States  Department of Agriculture Graduate School.
While generic training offered by outside professionals is valuable,  component-specific training can better ensure compliance with  component-specific policies and procedures and greater consistency in the  application of exemptions. Also, offering this specialized training to new  staff ensures that they are knowledgeable about policies and component- specific practices before they begin processing requests, which can yield  faster processing times and more accurate and consistent processing.  USSS and FEMA may have opportunities to enhance the consistency and  accuracy of their processing by developing and implementing specialized  training programs for their staff.
section_title: Providing Request Status Information Online Could Enhance Staff Productivity and Customer Service at DHS Components
paragraphs: Based on experience at a major DHS component, providing requesters  with online access to information concerning the status of their requests  can contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity.  According to officials at USCIS, not only does an online status-check  service provide requesters with instant access to information, it also  reduces the need to divert staff resources away from request processing to  respond to telephone status inquiries.
Actions at USCIS have shown that productivity and efficiency can be  enhanced by implementing an online status-check service. According to  component officials, since it was initiated in May 2008, the USCIS service  has contributed to improved staff productivity and provided requesters  with faster access to status information. The system allows requesters to  access status information by entering their unique tracking number into a  form on USCIS’s FOIA Web site. The Web site then returns real-time status  information extracted from the component’s tracking system.
Agency officials reported that the service has improved the efficiency of  their program. Since deploying the service in May 2008, USCIS reported  experiencing a reduction of customer service phone calls received in the  following 3 months. As reflected in table 3 below, the monthly call volume  for the months following implementation (May through October) was less  than during the 4 months prior to implementation (January through April).  USCIS officials estimated that 60 percent of all FOIA-related customer  service phone calls are status inquiries.
The Director of the National Records Center stated that the online status- check service, by reducing the number of customer service calls, has also  allowed staff to spend more time on other duties, such as processing  requests. Before USCIS deployed the service, requesters seeking  information about their requests needed to call the service center and  speak directly with staff.
Like USCIS, ICE has also developed and implemented an online status- check service. Deployed in December 2008, it allows requesters to query  the tracking system regarding the status of their requests by filling out a  form on the agency’s Web site. ICE’s FOIA Officer described the online  status-check service as part of an effort to enhance customer service and  reduce the number of status request phone calls ICE receives. At the time  of our review, the ICE service had not been in operation long enough for  data to be collected on the benefits it has yielded.
In contrast to USCIS and ICE, the other five major DHS components have  not yet deployed online status-check services. In order for agency  components to provide an online status-check capability, they must  maintain tracking systems that capture status information for all requests  and can make it available for online queries. Three of the five components  operate comprehensive tracking systems but do not provide the service.  The other two neither provide an online service nor possess a sufficiently  comprehensive tracking system to support one.
USSS is an example of a component that has not deployed an online  status-check service, even though it operates a comprehensive tracking  system. The agency instructs requesters who are seeking status  information to call the FOIA service center or submit their request’s  unique tracking number through its Web site. Once a status inquiry is  received, staff search the tracking system to provide requesters with status  information. Agency officials stated that, in response to Executive Order  13392, USSS is considering the feasibility of deploying an online status  system. By deploying such a service, the component may be able to reduce  the staff resources it currently devotes to responding to status inquiries.
Like USSS, FEMA does not provide an online service, despite operating a  comprehensive tracking system. Currently, when requesters call or e-mail  FEMA’s central office seeking status information, staff must contact the  relevant program offices to determine the status of the request and relay  that information to the requester. Agency officials stated that responding  to requester calls to its FOIA Helpline was a full-time job, and that  transitioning to an online status service would be cost-effective and  efficient for both the agency and requesters. Although agency officials  stated that FEMA is developing a database feature to allow requesters to  view status information through its FOIA Web site, they did not provide an  estimate of when the service would be available. Until the online status  service is made available, FEMA will likely continue to devote significant  staff resources to responding to status inquiries.
TSA also continues to use staff to manually search its tracking system to  determine a request’s status. TSA officials stated that, for technical  reasons, it would not be feasible to develop an online status service based  on its current comprehensive tracking system. Instead, staff reply to  requester inquiries in the same format (e-mail or phone) that the inquiry  was received, typically within 24 to 48 hours. Agency officials also stated  that the FOIA office is exploring adopting other case management  software applications that could support an online status service. If TSA  ultimately develops such a capability, it might be able to reduce the staff  resources devoted to responding to status inquiries.
Currently, the FOIA tracking systems at the Coast Guard and CBP are not  sufficiently comprehensive to support an online status service. The Coast  Guard operates separate tracking systems for each of its 1,300 field  offices. Requesters seeking the status of their requests must inquire  directly with the Coast Guard field office responsible for processing the  request. Similarly, CBP cannot yet provide a component-wide online status  service because its tracking system does not capture current status  information for commercial or financial requests processed by offices or  ports other than its central office. For such requests, CBP’s tracking  system, which is manually updated each month, records when the request  was received and to which office or port it was referred. The tracking  system is also updated when the office or port notifies the central office  that the request was processed. CBP officials stated that they had not  deployed an online service for noncommercial and nonfinancial requests  because CBP does not provide outside entities access to its tracking  system. As a result, requesters seeking status information for  noncommercial or nonfinancial requests, which account for approximately  95 percent of CBP’s requests, must phone their inquiry to personnel at  CBP’s central office. By providing an online status check service, the  Coast Guard and CBP could improve customer service and reduce staff  resources devoted to responding to status inquiries.
section_title: Releasing Records for Large Requests in an Electronic Format Could Provide Cost Savings and Improve Efficiency
paragraphs: The format (paper or electronic) on which records are released to  requesters can affect operating expenditures and processing efficiency.  Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS components,  using electronic dissemination to respond to “large” requests (requests  involving many document pages) can decrease the amount of resources  expended on paper, toner, and postage. In such cases, agency officials  report that the cost of copying responsive records onto a CD and mailing  the CD to the requester is generally significantly less than printing and  mailing the information on paper.
DOJ has used electronic dissemination to improve the efficiency of its  processing. For example, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has  used electronic dissemination to streamline its FOIA process. Prior to  adopting a policy of providing records on CD by default, the Executive  Office’s staff often engaged in lengthy negotiations with requesters over  reproduction fees. Agency officials cited the transition to releasing records  on CD as a major factor in reducing the agency’s backlog because it  reduced the need for staff to spend time negotiating over fees with  requesters.
Likewise, three of DHS’s seven major components have used electronic  dissemination to reduce operating costs when responding to large  requests:    USCIS officials reported that they respond to approximately 60 percent of  requests by mailing electronic copies of records on CD, accounting for 80  percent of the total number of released pages. The remaining 40 percent of  requests are released on paper, either because the request is less than 15  pages or because the requester specifically requests a paper format.  Although they have not documented the costs of providing responsive  records on CD, USCIS officials estimated that electronic dissemination  had reduced their paper and toner costs by half.
ICE also has a policy of releasing records on CD, except when a requester  specifies paper. ICE’s FOIA Information System Security Officer estimated  that electronic dissemination had reduced the office’s paper consumption  by almost 90 percent.
FEMA also has a policy of using electronic dissemination (on CD) for large  requests.
DHS’s four remaining major components release records on paper, unless  otherwise specified by the requester:    CBP officials stated that they were focusing their efforts on hiring staff to  process requests and they would consider process enhancements, such as  electronic dissemination, once they achieved full staffing.
Coast Guard officials stated that they had not adopted a policy of  defaulting to an electronic format because they had not received guidance  from DHS on this subject and because it may be less expensive for them to  reproduce records on paper.
TSA officials stated that their FOIA office releases records on paper based  on its understanding that this is the preference of requesters, and only  provides records in electronic format when specifically requested.
USSS officials stated that the agency considered adopting a policy of  releasing records electronically or on CD when FOIA requesters did not  specify a preference for paper, but decided not to adopt such a policy out  of deference to requesters who do not have the means or capability to  access information stored electronically.
While it may be less expensive to respond to small requests in a paper  format, it can be more economical to respond to large requests in an  electronic format. Adopting a release policy that more fully incorporates  electronic means of dissemination when it is economically advisable could  reduce the operational costs of processing requests, as well as the staff  resources diverted to negotiating the release format with requesters.
section_title: Use of Electronic Redaction Could Allow Efficient Processing of Requests
paragraphs: Rapidly and accurately removing (redacting) nonreleasable data from  requested records is an integral part of responding to FOIA requests in a  timely manner. DOJ’s Implementation Guidance notes that electronic  redaction software can enable agencies to process requests more  efficiently than through manual redaction. Based on actions taken at DOJ  and the Department of State, as well as within several DHS components,  the use of electronic redaction can allow for more timely responses to  requests. Electronic redaction involves using software to eliminate  nonreleasable data from electronic files. The software allows staff to  quickly select text or images to be removed and annotate the text with the  reasons (applicable exemptions) for the redactions. Manual redaction is  more labor-intensive, typically involving photocopying or scanning a  document after removing nonreleasable information by physically cutting,  covering, or marking each page.
Officials at DOJ and the Department of State reported that electronic  redaction had led to improvements in the efficiency of their operations for  processing information requests. FBI officials stated that electronic  redaction had enabled the agency to significantly reduce staff while  doubling productivity. Since 2002, the use of automation, including  electronic redaction, has allowed the FBI to reduce staff levels from 630 to  230 employees, while reducing its number of pending requests from 2,500  to 1,800. Also, the rate of processing by individual staff was reported to  have increased from 500 pages to 1,000 pages per month. Likewise, Bureau  of Prisons officials estimated that electronic redaction had reduced  redaction time by 10 percent. The State Department’s Director of  Information Programs and Services likewise credited electronic redaction  with improving efficiency and also noted that it resulted in a more  professional product.
Officials from several DHS components also reported having improved the  efficiency or quality of their request processing by adopting electronic  redaction:    CBP officials stated that since November 25, 2008, all of the permanent  FOIA staff in the central office have used electronic redaction software to  process records. They estimated that 90 to 95 percent of records are  redacted electronically.
USCIS officials reported that they use electronic redaction exclusively. A  senior official estimated that, since adopting electronic redaction in 1998,  the agency had significantly increased the efficiency of the its redaction  process by eliminating the need to manually cut or mark records.
ICE’s FOIA Officer stated that electronic redaction had resulted in  significant time-savings over previous manual redaction processes.
According to USSS officials, approximately 70 to 75 percent of the records  they process are redacted electronically. USSS officials credit electronic  redaction with increasing productivity, reducing response time frames,  and improving customer service. The remaining 25 to 30 percent of USSS  records are processed manually because of security requirements  prohibiting the electronic redaction of classified records.
FEMA officials reported that they use electronic redaction to respond to  approximately 90 percent of their requests. FEMA officials stated that  implementing electronic redaction has enabled faster processing and a  more professional and consistent product for requesters. FEMA still  manually processes 10 percent of its records, either because the records  are classified or because they have already been partially manually  redacted.
In contrast, the Coast Guard and TSA do not use electronic redaction  when responding to the majority of their requests:    Coast Guard officials estimated that 7 percent of their FOIA staff have  access to electronic redaction software, and approximately 70 percent of  the records processed by those with access are redacted electronically.  Nevertheless, Coast Guard officials stated that electronic redaction had  reduced processing time for large volume records and reduced the  likelihood of improperly releasing information. Coast Guard officials  added that funding had been requested for an electronic system located at  all major FOIA processing centers which would enable online redactions.
Although all of TSA’s FOIA staff members have access to electronic  redaction software, only 10 percent of records are redacted electronically.  Agency officials stated that TSA had been unable to adopt electronic  redaction more broadly because of difficulties integrating the redaction  software with TSA’s file sharing application. The officials added that TSA  is considering other software solutions that might allow broader adoption  of electronic redaction.
By more broadly adopting electronic redaction, the Coast Guard and TSA  have opportunities to improve the efficiency of their operations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While DHS has made advances in ensuring compliance and oversight  among its components, such as developing a departmentwide handbook  and monitoring monthly data processing statistics, opportunities exist for  further improvements. Practices in place at DOJ and the Department of  State, and within a number of DHS’s own component agencies, have  demonstrated that a variety of enhancements are possible. However, these  key practices have not yet been implemented consistently across the  department. Such practices include monitoring and oversight of FOIA  processing, component-specific training, providing online status  information, releasing records in electronic format, and using electronic  redaction. By consistently implementing these practices across all major  departmental components, DHS is likely to be able to further reduce its  backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer service, and respond to  FOIA requests in a more timely fashion.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the department’s  FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland  Security take the following five actions:    Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security  Administration, and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing  monitoring and oversight mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of  overdue requests.
Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency  and United States Secret Service to consider developing and implementing  specialized training programs for their staff.
Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security  Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States Secret  Service to consider providing requesters with an online mechanism to  obtain information about the status of their requests.
Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  Transportation Security Administration, United States Secret Service, and  United States Coast Guard to consider establishing a policy of primarily  disseminating records to requesters in an electronic format when large  numbers of pages are involved.
Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security Administration  and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the use of electronic  redaction when processing requests.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ, and the Department of  State for review and comment. In response, we received written comments  from the Director of DHS’s GAO/OIG Liaison Office, which are reprinted in  appendix II. Officials from DOJ and the Department of State indicated that  they had no comments on the draft report.
In his written comments, the Director stated that DHS concurred with our  assessment and recommendations and stated that the department will use  the report to ensure improvement to its FOIA program in the future. In  addition, DHS provided information on actions certain components are  taking to address our recommendations. DHS also provided technical  comments by e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and interested  congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees on  Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of the Department  of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  program. Our specific objectives were to determine (1) what key steps  DHS has taken to improve its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities, if  any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA  operations across the department.
To determine the key steps DHS has taken to improve its program, we  reviewed the goals contained in the DHS improvement plan, the reported  progress made on these goals from the DHS annual FOIA reports, and  documentation regarding initiatives aimed at improving departmental  operations. To corroborate information obtained from the DHS Privacy  Office about the department’s actions and reported reductions in backlog,  we obtained and analyzed supporting information from major  departmental components by observing processing operations and  obtaining documentation of improvement initiatives. We focused our work  on the seven agency components that reported the largest number of  pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007: U.S. Customs and Border  Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration,  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United  States Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. We obtained and  analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of these  components to assess DHS’s performance. We also conducted site visits at  ICE and USCIS, which account for the majority of requests processed at  DHS, to analyze information regarding their processes and the  implementation of improvement initiatives. Further, we interviewed DHS  officials regarding the impact of organizational, technological, and  managerial actions on achieving departmental improvement plan goals.
To determine what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department, we reviewed  DHS-specific FOIA policies and procedures, including documentation  regarding program structure, processes, and resources, to determine what  practices were in place throughout the department. We also reviewed  laws, regulations, and guidance aimed at improving FOIA operations  across the government, including Executive Order 13392, the Department  of Justice’s (DOJ) guidance on implementing Executive Order 13392, and  the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of  2007. We then reviewed similar documentation from DOJ and the  Department of State—two agencies with types of information similar to  DHS—and compared their programs to DHS operations to identify key  practices that could be implemented more widely in DHS to make  improvements in efficiency and customer service. Specifically, within DOJ,  we analyzed key practices of FOIA programs at the Federal Bureau of  Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office for Immigration  Review, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys—the four  components that reported the largest number of pending cases at the end  of fiscal year 2007—by discussing practices with officials, analyzing  documentation, and observing processing activities firsthand to determine  the impact they had on program efficiency. To supplement information on  key practices obtained from DOJ and the Department of State, we  analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of the seven  major component agencies within DHS to determine which processes and  improvement initiatives they had implemented and the extent to which  these actions had produced tangible benefits. For components that had  not implemented key practices, we obtained and analyzed information  about the reasons they had not done so.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to January 2009 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this report  were made by John de Ferrari, Assistant Director; Marisol Cruz; Richard J.  Hagerman; and Lee McCracken.