Freedom of Information Act: Office of Government Information Services Has Begun Implementing Its Responsibilities, but Further Actions Are Needed
Released: 2013-09-10T00:00:00

Letter

Background

FOIA established a legal right of access to government information on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability in government. Prior to passage of the act in 1966, the government required an individual or entity to demonstrate a “need to know” before being granted the right to examine a federal record. FOIA established a “right to know” standard, under which an individual or entity could receive access to information held by a federal agency without demonstrating a need or reason. The “right to know” standard shifted the burden of proof from the individual or entity to the government agency holding the information and required the agency to provide proper justification when denying a request for access.

Any person, with a few exceptions, can file a FOIA request, including foreign nationals, corporations, and organizations. For example, a foreign national can request his or her alien file, and a commercial requester, which can include data brokers that file a request on behalf of others, may request, among other things, a copy of a government contract or grant proposal. In response, the agency holding the desired record is required to provide it to the requester (unless the record falls within a permitted exemption). Generally, FOIA allows agencies to collect a fee for searching and duplicating records in connection with responding to a request. Apart from providing access to records in response to a request, FOIA also requires agencies to disclose certain information by publication in the Federal Register or electronically (e.g., on the Internet), or by making it available in a physical or electronic reading room.

While FOIA has helped improve public access to government information and has been a positive step toward providing more openness in government, a March 12, 2007, House committee report accompanying the OPEN Government Act pointed out that agencies receive hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests a year, which has led to slow response times, increased backlogs, and costly and time-consuming litigation between requesters and the government. As such, according to the report, FOIA requesters have argued that they would benefit from having access to an ombudsman to provide guidance before, or as an alternative to, litigation.

OGIS Was Established to Help Oversee the Administration of FOIA

To help address the concerns surrounding FOIA implementation, the OPEN Government Act,NARA to: among other things, established OGIS within review policies and procedures that agencies have developed to administer FOIA; review agency compliance with FOIA requirements; recommend policy changes to Congress and the President to improve the administration of FOIA; and offer mediation services to resolve disputes between individuals or entities making FOIA requests and agencies as an non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

OGIS was established within NARA, on September 8, 2009. The office operated directly under the Archivist of the United States until March 7, 2011, when it was moved to Agency Services, which operates under the authority of the agency’s Chief Operating Officer. According to its charter, the mission of Agency Services is to lead NARA’s efforts in servicing the ongoing records management needs of federal agencies and to represent the public’s interest in the accountability and transparency of these records. OGIS is one of five supporting offices under Agency Services, as shown on the organization chart in figure 1.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., OGIS is led by a director who reports to the Executive of Agency Services. As of August 2013, the Director was aided by a deputy director, an attorney advisor, two management and program analysts, and a staff assistant—for a total of six full-time employees.

Other Federal Agencies Also Have FOIA-Related Responsibilities

In addition to OGIS, other federal agencies also have responsibility for the oversight and administration of FOIA. Specifically, since it was established 30 years ago, the Office of Information Policy within the Department of Justice (Justice) has been responsible for overseeing the administration of FOIA by encouraging compliance, overseeing agencies’ implementation of the OPEN Government Act, and issuing policy guidance. As such, the office prepares a comprehensive guide that addresses various aspects of the act; conducts a variety of FOIA-related training programs for personnel across the government; and uses attorneys to serve as counselors that provide FOIA information, advice, and guidance to government staff and the public regarding implementation of the act. In addition, Justice represents federal agencies in lawsuits brought by FOIA requesters.

According to Justice, as of fiscal year 2012, a total of 99 federal agencies had responsibility for implementing FOIA. These agencies process requests, publish related regulations, and submit annual reports through the heads of their agencies to the Attorney General that include statistics on their FOIA processing. Further, the OPEN Government Act gave agency chief FOIA officers responsibility for ensuring agencywide compliance by monitoring implementation throughout the agency; recommending changes in policies, practices, staffing, and funding; and reviewing and reporting to agency heads and to Justice on the agency’s performance in implementing FOIA. (These reports are referred to as chief FOIA officer reports and are in addition to the annual reports that agencies also submit to Justice.)

GAO Has Previously Reported on Agencies’ Efforts to Implement FOIA

Over the past 6 years, we have issued several reports on federal agencies’ implementation of FOIA, including their progress in improving FOIA processing and backlog reduction.

GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Additional Actions Can Strengthen Agency Efforts to Improve Management, GAO-12-828 (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). example, using a single tracking system and providing requesters with the ability to track the status of their requests online. We recommended that the agencies improve the management of their FOIA programs by ensuring that actions were taken to reduce backlogs and the use of exemptions, improve FOIA libraries, and implement technology. Officials from the four agencies agreed or generally agreed with the recommendations.

OGIS Has Assisted Agencies, but Has Not Proactively Reviewed Agencies’ FOIA Policies, Procedures, and Compliance

OGIS has engaged in several activities that, according to its officials, were intended to respond to the OPEN Government Act requirement that it review federal agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance. Specifically, OGIS has engaged in tasks such as making suggestions for improving the clarity and readability of agencies’ proposed FOIA regulations and notices and offering general observations regarding agencies’ correspondence. For example, in 2010 and 2011, the office reviewed the Federal Register to identify when agencies had submitted FOIA regulations for public comment and then offered responses to the requests for comments on the proposed regulations. In this regard, OGIS offered comments on improving the contents of regulations that had been proposed by 18 agencies. Among the suggestions that it offered to one or more of these agencies were that they: provide requesters with an estimated amount of fees, including a breakdown of the fees for the time staff devote to searching, reviewing, and/or duplicating records for a FOIA request; add a statement to clarify the difference between a third-party request made under FOIA and a first-party request made under the Privacy Act; notify requesters in writing when their requests have been referred to another agency, and include the part of the request that has been referred and the name of the FOIA contact in that agency; and recognize the important statutory role of the FOIA Public Liaison in reducing delays, increasing transparency, and understanding the status of requests.

In addition, as part of its actions taken to review policies and procedures, in 2011 and 2012 the office responded to agencies’ requests in the Federal Register for public comments on Privacy Act system of records notices. The office commented on six such requests during these 2 years. For example, the office suggested that agencies include model language in their system of records notices that would allow OGIS to share information with the affected agency as a permitted disclosure under the Privacy Act. According to the officials, without the model language, OGIS would be required to obtain written consent from each requester prior to being able to access their records when mediating a dispute.

Further, through various means (for example, FOIA roundtable meetings, website, and blog) in 2012 and 2013, OGIS invited agencies to submit FOIA correspondence, such as acknowledgment and close-out letters, for its review. According to OGIS, one agency responded to these invitations and the office, in turn, made suggestions aimed at improving the clarity and readability of the agency’s correspondence. Specifically, OGIS provided comments to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency on a template for its close-out letter that clarified the legal requirements to protect from disclosure, information on the location of classified military systems personnel, and information on contractor proposals. Beyond this activity, the office offered Dispute Resolution Skills training to agencies, including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, and, as part of the training, provided instruction on improving agency correspondence to requesters.

Nevertheless, while OGIS has engaged in these specific activities, none was a proactive, comprehensive evaluation of federal agencies’ FOIA policies and procedures. Moreover, the office has not conducted any reviews of agencies’ compliance with FOIA. Rather, the office has generally worked in an ad hoc, reactive manner to respond to Federal Register proposals put forth by agencies or to seek opportunities to comment or provide training on correspondence and documentation other than FOIA policies and procedures. Furthermore, the activities that it has undertaken have been limited to engaging with only a small fraction of the 99 federal agencies that, according to Justice, have responsibility for implementing FOIA. Similarly, while the office reported that it has reviewed agencies’ annual FOIA reports and Chief FOIA Officer reports from Justice’s Office of Information Policy website to identify best practices on improving FOIA processing, and has made general observations about agencies’ policies, procedures, and compliance with FOIA through the office’s mediation case work, these actions were not undertaken as part of a specific review of agencies’ compliance with FOIA, as required by the OPEN Government Act.

A key factor contributing to the absence of proactive and comprehensive reviews of federal agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance by OGIS is that the office has not established a structured methodology for conducting such reviews. Our work has determined that developing a methodology is critical to conducting quality, credible, and useful reviews. Our evaluation guidance states that a structured methodology should define, among other things, the scope, schedule, criteria, and evaluation questions for conducting the reviews. OGIS had not defined the scope of work for its reviews, to include information on which specific agencies it will review, (such as the agencies that receive the largest number of FOIA requests) and when it will do so. In addition, the office had not established the criteria against which the agencies’ policies, procedures, and compliance with FOIA requirements would be assessed; and it had not developed evaluation questions to be used in conducting the reviews.

The Director of OGIS acknowledged the limitations of the reviews that had been conducted, stating that the office had prioritized its resources to favor mediation activities. In this regard, the Director stated that the staff tasked with providing mediation services should function as neutral third parties and be independent from staff tasked with reviewing agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance. However, the Director said that, given the small number of staff assigned to OGIS, the office has not been able to establish a separate team of reviewers. OGIS officials added that the office is in the early stages of drafting a methodology for conducting the reviews, but that a time frame for when the methodology will be completed has not been established. Further, while Agency Services has identified a need for additional staff to support OGIS in implementing its mission, it has not established a plan that addresses how the office intends to staff the FOIA reviews. Industry practices stress the importance of analyzing workforce needs and developing a plan of action for addressing those needs. Moreover, in September 2012, a report issued by the Office of Inspector General at NARA concluded that while OGIS was currently able to meet its mission, additional resources would allow the office to have a more robust program for conducting the reviews.of OGIS, through the budget process, define resources necessary to better accomplish the office’s statutory requirement. As of early August 2013, however, OGIS had not yet implemented this recommendation.

The Office of Inspector General recommended that the Director Until OGIS completes a methodology, and defines the resources needed to accomplish the requirements of the office as the NARA Inspector General has recommended, the office will not be positioned to effectively execute the responsibilities envisioned for it in assisting with this important aspect of FOIA implementation.

OGIS Is Mediating Disputes, but Lacks Goals and Metrics for Measuring Timeliness and Success

In response to the OPEN Government Act requirement that it offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation, OGIS defines two types of mediation services that it provides to address requests for assistance:

Facilitation: A type of mediation in which an OGIS staff member facilitates communication between the requester and the agency, helping the parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution without the perceived formality or cost of mediation.

Ombuds services: Advice and services (other than mediation) offered in response to complaints that the office receives. Ombuds services do not address the substance of a dispute (such as the exemptions taken), but rather, the mechanics of a dispute (such as the status of a delayed request).

OGIS has a documented process for handling the requests that it receives. Specifically, when a request is received—by phone, e-mail, fax, or electronically through its website—a case file is opened and assigned a tracking number in an automated case management system. Once a case has been opened, the office goes through a fact-finding process to determine what services are called for, such as, helping the parties exchange information or suggesting options for resolution. For each case, further actions taken by OGIS and the other parties involved, as well as any agreements reached, are recorded in the case management system.

During fiscal year 2012, OGIS accepted 855 requests for assistance: 46 involved facilitation or both facilitation/ombuds services, and 239 involved only ombuds services. Of the remaining requests, 498 were classified by OGIS as a “quick hit” and 72 were classified as miscellaneous (for example, “administrative closure,” “no direct action requested,” or “request withdrawn.”)

Of the 44 facilitation and facilitation/ombuds services cases that OGIS initiated in 2012, remaining 14 were cases that OGIS did not mediate because it agreed with the agency’s decision on the FOIA request.) Further, among the cases that were mediated, we determined that 22 had a positive result, as defined by one or more of the following three actions: the office provided mediation for 30. (Most of the

One or both parties took action or modified their position after OGIS’s intervention. For example, a requester conducting family genealogy research requested from the Social Security Administration, a copy of a Social Security form pertaining to a family member. In response, the agency sent the form to the requester, but the subject’s parents’ names had been redacted—blacked out— because the Social Security Administration does not reveal information about a living person and, given their dates of birth, had concluded that the parents might still be alive. The requester filed an appeal and provided death certificates for the parents, but the appeal was denied. An OGIS mediator subsequently contacted a Social Security Administration official on the requester’s behalf to discuss the denial. After reexamining the case, the agency agreed to send an unredacted document to the requester.

While 46 cases were initiated in 2012, we included 44 cases in our review. One case was omitted because it involved only OGIS and agency officials, and a second was omitted because the case was not included in the data OGIS provided from which we made our selection.

One or both parties indicated increased satisfaction with the outcome of the FOIA process as a result of OGIS’s mediation. For example, a representative of a trade organization, who had requested contract data from the Department of Homeland Security, had received only part of the information requested. The agency withheld substantial information under a FOIA exemption protecting trade secrets. The requester subsequently contacted OGIS, and a mediator contacted the agency’s appeals officer and discussed the relevant case law. In response to this action, the agency reconsidered its decision and provided the information with only minimal redactions. The customer noted that she was “extremely happy with the results of the mediation.”

The issue in dispute was clarified, addressed, or resolved after OGIS intervened. For example, a requester asked the Securities and Exchange Commission for all its files of a certain type and later asked OGIS for help because of a perceived delay in the agency’s response. A mediator then contacted an official at the agency, who explained that the requested files were difficult to retrieve because some were paper files that were not indexed and were geographically dispersed. The mediator explained this to the requester, who was initially unwilling to compromise but was open to an OGIS-facilitated discussion with the agency. The agency agreed, and OGIS subsequently facilitated a teleconference between the requester and the agency, during which the two parties agreed that the requester would file a narrower request that the agency could fill promptly.

Overall, among these 22 cases, 9 involved a denial, in which an agency declined to release the requested records; 7 involved a delay, in which a requester believed the agency was taking too much time to fill a request; and 3 involved fees, where a requester believed the amount being charged was excessive or that a fee waiver was applicable. The other 3 cases involved: a dispute over whether an appeal had been submitted in a timely manner, a customer disputing that an agency had not found responsive records, and a requester wanting results in a different format.

Also, among the cases that OGIS mediated, we determined that 8 did not have a positive result, as explained by the following examples: In four cases, OGIS provided mediation services, but the agency did not change its position on refusing to provide the requested information. In one case, for example, the agency did not change its position that the requester needed to provide a waiver or proof of death for the subject of the request in order for the agency to process the request. In another example, the agency stood by its decision to refer the requester to a publicly available document. In one case, the agency, after its initial meeting with OGIS and the requester, was unwilling to continue to meet on matters related to the FOIA request. In one case, OGIS held discussions regarding the agency not granting the requester free search time as required by FOIA and OMB’s guidance. The agency did not change its position and the requester pursued litigation regarding the matter. In the remaining two cases, OGIS confirmed that the information the requesters were seeking was either exempt from disclosure, or the record did not exist. For example, in one of these cases, the requester had sought a list of active Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt cases in litigation, but had received a “no records” response from the agency. As part of its mediation efforts, OGIS confirmed that the agency did not keep the requested information in any of its records.

Of the 14 cases where mediation was not provided, 11 were cases where OGIS agreed with the agency’s decision to deny a request. For example, in one of the cases, a prison inmate requested a copy of the Bureau of Prisons Correctional Services Manual, which addresses the operations of federal prisons. The bureau withheld the manual under a law enforcement exemption, stating that, while there may have been a public interest in the material, that interest did not outweigh the need to keep order in the prison system and avoid inmates using the information to their advantage. The requester then contacted OGIS, and the office responded that the agency’s actions had been consistent with FOIA law and policy and declined to mediate. In another instance, a case was not mediated because the agency declined to cooperate with OGIS. Further, for the remaining 2 cases, OGIS ultimately determined that they were ones in which mediation was not needed. For example, to resolve one of the cases, OGIS only needed to explain an agency letter to a requester.

Although it has taken actions to resolve disputes—in many cases having positive results through mediation—the office lacks performance measures and goals needed to gauge the overall success of its mediation services. The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires NARA, like all agencies, to develop an annual performance plan that includes performance goals for its program activities and accompanying performance measures, including timeliness and results-based measures. According to the act, the performance goals should be in a quantifiable and measurable form to define the level of performance to be achieved for program activities each year. Measuring performance allows an agency to track the progress it is making toward goals and gives managers crucial information on which to base their organizational and management decisions. Leading organizations recognize that performance measures can create powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior.

However, consistent with its fiscal year 2013 annual report, in which the office states that it has no formal metrics for measuring success, OGIS has not developed measures and goals for its mediation services. While its case management system can track the length of time required to handle a particular case, the office currently has no specific goals related to timeliness in handling requests for assistance. In this regard, in fiscal year 2012, the office had a timeliness goal, derived from NARA’s overall performance plan, of closing cases within 34 working days. However, according to the officials, this goal was dropped because it was not based on the office’s actual experience in handling the cases.

OGIS also has no measures or goals pertaining to the results of its mediation cases. For example, it has not established criteria for determining what constitutes success in a case or a goal for what percentage of its cases should have a successful result. OGIS’s Director said that the office is aware of the need for such measures and is making efforts to meet the need. The Director told us that OGIS has engaged a consultant to help review its case management system, identify reasons for differing case closure times, and help develop more measurable milestones. However, OGIS had not implemented measures as of mid- August 2013. Further, the office has begun using an online questionnaire where its customers can provide anonymous feedback on their experiences with OGIS and its staff. While this questionnaire may be useful if enough responses are received, its value as a voluntary, Web-based survey is limited: its respondents are self-selected, responses are anonymous, and comments cannot be linked to specific cases or contexts, thus limiting their usefulness. Until OGIS establishes quantifiable goals and measures of success for its mediation services, the office will not be positioned to determine how effectively it is performing mediation and contributing to the resolution of cases that might otherwise have resulted in potentially costly litigation or gone unresolved.

OGIS Has Made Recommendations and Issued Best Practices for Improving the Administration of FOIA

As required by the OPEN Government Act, OGIS has made recommendations to Congress and the President aimed at improving the administration of FOIA. These recommendations have largely focused on improving the internal coordination of government FOIA operations and areas where OGIS’s role could be made more effective. In addition, while it has not issued specific guidance on FOIA implementation, OGIS has collected best practices for improving FOIA processing for federal agencies.

Altogether, OGIS has made nine recommendations aimed at improving the FOIA process––five in 2012 and four in 2013. Seven of the recommendations were specific to actions that the office believed it should take (in certain cases in conjunction with agency partners and other stakeholders), while two of the recommendations focused on actions to be taken by other federal agencies.

Specifically, OGIS recommended to Congress and the President actions that it had either taken or was planning to take to enhance its own role in administering FOIA, as follows:

Work to encourage other departments and agencies to partner with it to expand dispute resolution training for their FOIA professionals so that they can assist their FOIA colleagues in preventing and resolving disputes.

Work with other agencies to consider how the FOIA web portal (https://FOIAonline.regulations.gov/),portal, might be useful to them in carrying out their statutory responsibilities and use it to accept FOIA requests and allow responsive documents to be uploaded and posted for the public.

Facilitate the coordination of interagency communication for governmentwide FOIA requests among agencies by serving as the central point-of-contact for agencies in sharing information, and also for relaying information to requesters as appropriate.

Work with stakeholders from both inside and outside government to review the issues surrounding FOIA fees and fee waivers, which remains a persistent point of contention administratively and in litigation.

Develop, with the Chief Information Officers Council, methods for agencies to better handle requesters seeking their own records under the Privacy Act to improve how requesters navigate agency processes to obtain needed assistance. In conjunction with OMB, create a governmentwide Privacy Act routine-use procedure to streamline the way in which agencies share with OGIS information covered by the act.

Work with agencies to streamline the process of requesting immigration-related records because of the increased number of requests related to these records.

In addition, OGIS recommended that federal agencies take specific actions, as follows:

Encourage and support the use of dispute resolution in the agency FOIA processes to prevent and resolve disputes administratively and avoid litigation.

Remind their staff of the importance of FOIA and recognize FOIA as a priority (based on the position that many agency employees may be unfamiliar with their own responsibilities under the law).

OGIS officials stated that the recommendations were based on the office’s ongoing work with federal agencies and members of the public. They acknowledged that the office had not compiled other information that would be necessary to recommend substantive revisions to underlying FOIA policies or otherwise suggest legislative actions to Congress and the President. However, such information potentially could have been derived if OGIS had taken steps to conduct more comprehensive reviews of agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance and had established and implemented results-based measures for its mediation services.

According to its documentation, OGIS submitted the nine recommendations over a 2-year period from February 2011 through March 2013. The officials explained that their submission of these recommendations followed periods of interagency review as required under the process overseen by OMB. Specifically, they explained that OGIS had submitted its first two draft recommendations for review in accordance with the OMB Circular A-19 on February 16, 2011. These initial recommendations focused on developing, with the Chief Information Officers Council, methods for agencies to better handle requesters seeking their own records under the Privacy Act and in conjunction with OMB, creating a governmentwide Privacy Act routine-use procedure. Then, over the next 14 months, OMB and NARA had periodic discussions regarding the significant number of interagency comments that OMB had received on the recommendations.

Following discussion on the status of the two recommendations at a congressional hearing in March 2012, recommendations to OMB for review. OMB officials said they then worked with OGIS to address interagency comments on the three recommendations, as well as the initial two recommendations.

The hearing, entitled “The Freedom of Information Act: Safeguarding Critical Infrastructure Information and the Public’s Right to Know,” was held on March13, 2012, by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After OMB completed its review in mid-April 2012, OGIS informed Congress that its recommendations did not include any substantive revisions to the disclosure requirements of FOIA. OGIS officials subsequently stated that, as a result of the interagency consultation process, OGIS and OMB had agreed that the five recommendations could be addressed administratively and did not require any legislative action.

In mid-January 2013, OGIS and OMB officials met to discuss a second set of potential recommendations that the office intended to submit. The office subsequently submitted four recommendations to OMB for Circular A-19 review on March 4, 2013. According to OGIS officials, the review of these recommendations was completed on March 12, 2013, and the recommendations were provided to Congress on March 13, 2013, to support a congressional hearing during Sunshine Week.

OGIS Does Not Issue Guidance, but Disseminates Best Practices for Improving FOIA Processing

Although OGIS does not issue specific guidance on FOIA implementation, it collects and shares best practices for improving federal agencies’ processing of FOIA requests. According to OMB, best practices are the processes, practices, and systems identified in public and private organizations that work exceptionally well and are widely recognized as being helpful in improving an organization’s performance and efficiency in specific areas. Best practices can be based on lessons learned from positive experiences or on negative experiences that result in an undesirable outcome. In addition, guidance states that the use of best practices is a principal component of an organizational culture committed to continuous improvement.

Toward this end, OGIS collects best practices for improving FOIA processing from several sources, including its reviews of agencies’ annual FOIA reports and mediation case files, as well as anecdotally from persons involved in mediation cases facilitated by the office. OGIS publishes best practices related to key FOIA requirements and guidance in its annual reports, and on its website (https://ogis.archives.gov/) and blog (http://blogs.archives.gov/foiablog/). The website includes a number of links describing various best practices specifically for FOIA requestors and federal agencies. Table 1 describes examples of the best practices OGIS has disseminated.

OGIS officials stated that the office updates its blog at least weekly with posts addressing best practices, case studies, and where the public and federal agencies can engage in discussions about FOIA issues. In addition, OGIS uses other mechanisms to improve the administration of FOIA, to include presenting training for FOIA professionals; holding conferences with the American Society for Access Professionals to share best practices; and, at the start of fiscal year 2013, helping to launch the FOIA web portal (https://FOIAonline.regulations.gov/).

Conclusions

Since it was established 4 years ago, OGIS has taken actions to implement selected legislative responsibilities, although it has fallen short in certain areas. Specifically, while the office has suggested improvements to a number of agencies’ FOIA regulations and system of records notices, it has not completed a methodology for proactively reviewing agencies’ policies, procedures, and compliance with FOIA requirements and a time frame for doing so. As a mediator between requesters and federal agencies, OGIS has resolved cases that might have otherwise resulted in litigation. However, while we were able to identify instances in which its mediation efforts have had positive results, the office’s overall success in mediating cases is difficult to gauge without goals and performance measures. On the basis of its reviews of agency policy and procedures, and mediation experience, OGIS has made a number of recommendations to Congress and the President and shared best practices to help agencies improve the administration of FOIA. However, addressing the shortfalls that we noted is critical to OGIS effectively complying with its role as required by law.

Recommendations

To ensure that OGIS effectively performs its responsibilities under FOIA, as amended by the OPEN Government Act, we recommend that the Archivist of the United States direct the Executive for Agency Services and the Director of OGIS to take the following two actions:

Establish a time frame for completing and implementing a methodology that defines, among other things, the scope, schedule, criteria, and evaluation questions for conducting reviews of federal agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance.

Establish performance measures and goals for OGIS’s mediation services that define success in handling a case and include relevant goals for the number of cases handled successfully, as well as goals for timely management of cases based on past experience.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided drafts of this report to NARA and OMB for comment. In its written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II, NARA expressed appreciation for our attention to issues facing OGIS and concurred with the two recommendations in the report. NARA also specifically discussed actions that it was taking or planned to take related to our second recommendation. In particular, the agency stated that OGIS has consulted with other mediation and ombudsman offices on how to evaluate its services and will continue to do so. NARA added that it has been difficult to measure success and that the office’s resolution of a dispute is dependent on outside factors that are beyond OGIS’s control, such as the willingness of the parties to participate in voluntary mediation services. Further, NARA stated that it appreciated our suggestions regarding measures for success and would consider these suggestions as the office assesses measures for the upcoming fiscal year.

In addition to the aforementioned written comments, we received technical comments, via e-mail, from NARA’s Audit Liaison and OMB’s Audit Liaison, which we have incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Archivist of the United States; Executive for Agency Services, Director of OGIS, and other interested parties. Copies of this report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site, at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you or your staffs have any questions on the information discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to assess the actions that the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) has taken to (1) review agencies’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policies, procedures, and compliance, (2) mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and federal agencies, and (3) recommend policy changes to Congress and the President, and develop and issue guidance and best practices to agencies aimed at improving the administration of FOIA.

To assess the actions OGIS has taken to review agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance, we analyzed documentation describing the office’s plans and activities for conducting agency FOIA reviews. These included the office’s annual reports for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, quarterly reports, NARA’s annual performance plan for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, and the office’s comments on 18 proposed agency regulations and six Privacy Act system of records notices. We analyzed OGIS’s comments on agency FOIA correspondence, such as closeout letters, and training materials on improving agency correspondence to requesters. We compared the plans and activities to our program evaluation guidance that focuses on assessing the effectiveness of program operations and results. We also analyzed OGIS’s comments on the proposed agency regulations and compared them to the latest version of the agency’s regulations to determine whether they were incorporated.

While 46 cases were initiated in 2012, we included 44 cases in our review. We omitted two cases: one because it involved only OGIS and the agency’s FOIA staff, and one because it was not included in the data that OGIS provided, and from which we made our selection. examined the corresponding paper case files as well as data from the office’s automated case tracking system.

We developed criteria, after discussions with OGIS, for verifying whether a case involved mediation and for determining the result of the office’s mediation efforts. Specifically, we verified that a case was an example of mediation if one of the following occurred:

Other than the initial contact, OGIS had two or more substantive contacts with either party.

The office suggested options for changing a position or decision to either party.

Either party changed a decision or position (e.g. the agency waived fees or provided additional documents, or the requester narrowed the scope of a request).

We considered the office’s mediation efforts to have had a positive result if at least one of the following events occurred:

One or both parties took some action or modified their position after OGIS’s intervention (for example, the agency reduced fees or provided further documents).

One or both parties indicated increased satisfaction with the outcome of the FOIA process as the result of the office’s mediation.

The issue in dispute was clarified, addressed, or resolved.

To determine the reliability of data from OGIS’s case tracking system, we performed basic steps to ensure the data provided were valid and reviewed relevant information describing the database. Specifically, we tested for duplicate records, missing values, and out-of-range values in the data received from OGIS. We assessed the reliability of the system used to maintain these data. To determine the reliability of the case data, we independently replicated a report generated by the software and compared it to documents provided by OGIS to determine whether the data matched. Also, we conducted interviews with agency officials to gain an understanding of the process by which data are entered and validated. Based on the results of these efforts, we found the data sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To assess the office’s actions to recommend policy changes to Congress and the President, we reviewed documentation describing policy recommendations that were made to Congress and the President. We analyzed annual reports on the status of the implementation of these recommendations. In addition, we reviewed the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) written responses describing its reviews of OGIS’s policy recommendations, as well as any applicable OMB guidance, such as the Circular A-19. We supplemented our analyses with interviews of the Director of OGIS, the Acting Executive for Agency Services (the NARA organization in which OGIS is located), officials from OMB’s Office of General Counsel, and other cognizant NARA and OGIS officials. To assess OGIS’s actions to provide best practices to federal agencies, we reviewed documentation of OGIS’s agency best practices, case studies, and suggestions regarding FOIA included in the annual reports, and on the website and blog. We also observed OGIS meetings with other agencies, FOIA requesters, and the general public to discuss FOIA topics, such as the administration of fees and access to records through FOIA libraries. We supplemented our analyses with interviews of relevant OGIS officials to discuss the process used to identify best practices and measures established to evaluate their use by federal agencies.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through September 2013 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives and Records Administration

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were Cynthia J. Scott (assistant director), Nancy Glover, Cynthia Grant, Ashfaq Huda, Alina J. Johnson, Ruben Montes de Oca, Freda Paintsil, David Plocher, Glenn Spiegel, and Walter Vance.