Both DOE and DOD have established offices, designated staff, and promulgated policies to provide a framework for the OUO and FOUO programs. However, their policies lack sufficient clarity in important areas, which could result in inconsistencies and errors. DOE policy clearly identifies the office responsible for the OUO program and establishes a mechanism to mark the FOIA exemption used as the basis for the OUO designation on a document. However, our analysis of DOD’s FOUO policies shows that it is unclear which DOD office is responsible for the FOUO program, and whether personnel designating a document as FOUO should note the FOIA exemption used as the basis for the designation on the document. Also, both DOE’s and DOD’s policies are unclear regarding at what point a document should be marked as OUO or FOUO, and what would be an inappropriate use of the OUO or FOUO designation. In our view, this lack of clarity exists in both DOE and DOD because the agencies have put greater emphasis on managing classified information, which is more sensitive than OUO or FOUO information. DOE’s Office of Security issued an order, a manual, and a guide in April 2003 to detail the requirements and responsibilities for DOE’s OUO program and to provide instructions for identifying, marking, and protecting OUO information. DOE’s order established the OUO program and laid out, in general terms, how sensitive information should be identified and marked, and who is responsible for doing so. The guide and the manual supplement the order. The guide provides more detailed information on the applicable FOIA exemptions to help staff decide whether exemption(s) may apply, which exemption(s) may apply, or both. The manual provides specific instructions for managing OUO information, such as mandatory procedures and processes for properly identifying and marking this information. For example, the employee marking a document is required to place on the front page of the document an OUO stamp that has a space for the employee to identify which FOIA exemption is believed to apply; the employee’s name and organization; the date; and, if applicable, any guidance the employee may have used in making this determination. According to one senior DOE official, requiring the employee to cite a reason why a document is designated as OUO is one of the purposes of the stamp, and one means by which DOE’s Office of Classification encourages practices consistent with the order, guide, and manual throughout DOE. Figure 1 shows the DOE OUO stamp. With regard to DOD, its regulations are unclear regarding which DOD office controls the FOUO program. Although responsibility for the FOUO program shifted from the Director for Administration and Management to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (now the Under Secretary of Defense, Intelligence) in October 1998, this shift is not reflected in current regulations. Guidance for DOD’s FOUO program continues to be included in regulations issued by both offices. As a result, which DOD office has primary responsibility for the FOUO program is unclear. According to a DOD official, on occasion this lack of clarity causes personnel who have FOUO questions to contact the wrong office. A DOD official said that the department began coordination of a revised Information Security regulation covering the FOUO program at the end of January 2006. The new regulation will reflect the change in responsibilities and place greater emphasis on the management of the FOUO program. DOD currently has two regulations, issued by each of the offices described above, containing similar guidance that addresses how unclassified but sensitive information should be identified, marked, handled, and stored. Once information in a document has been identified as for official use only, it is to be marked FOUO. However, unlike DOE, DOD has no departmentwide requirement to indicate which FOIA exemption may apply to the information, except when it has been determined to be releasable to a federal governmental entity outside of DOD. We found, however, that one of the Army’s subordinate commands does train its personnel to put an exemption on any documents that are marked as FOUO, but does not have this step as a requirement in any policy. In our view, if DOD were to require employees to take the extra step of marking the exemption that may be the reason for the FOUO designation at the time of document creation, it would help assure that the employee marking the document had at least considered the exemptions and made a thoughtful determination that the information fit within the framework of the FOUO designation. Including the FOIA exemption on the document at the time it is marked would also facilitate better agency oversight of the FOUO program, since it would provide any reviewer/inspector with an indication of the basis for the marking. In addition, both DOE’s and DOD’s policies are unclear as to the point at which the OUO or FOUO designation should actually be affixed to a document. If a document might contain information that is OUO or FOUO but it is not so marked when it is first created, the risk that the document could be mishandled increases. DOE policy is vague about the appropriate time to apply a marking. DOE officials in the Office of Classification stated that their policy does not provide specific guidance about at what point to mark a document because such decisions are highly situational. Instead, according to these officials, the DOE policy relies on the “good judgment” of DOE personnel in deciding the appropriate time to mark a document. Similarly, DOD’s current Information Security regulation addressing the FOUO program does not identify at what point a document should be marked. In contrast, DOD’s September 1998 FOIA regulation, in a chapter on FOUO, states that “the marking of records at the time of their creation provides notice of FOUO content and facilitates review when a record is requested under the FOIA.” In our view, a policy can provide flexibility to address highly situational circumstances and also provide specific guidance and examples of how to properly exercise this flexibility. In addition, we found that both DOE’s and DOD’s OUO and FOUO programs lack clear language identifying examples of inappropriate usage of OUO or FOUO markings. Without such language, DOE and DOD cannot be confident that their personnel will not use these markings to conceal mismanagement, inefficiencies, or administrative errors, or to prevent embarrassment to themselves or their agency. While both DOE and DOD offer training to staff on managing OUO and FOUO information, neither agency requires any training of its employees before they are allowed to identify and mark information as OUO or FOUO, although some staff will eventually take OUO or FOUO training as part of other mandatory training. In addition, neither agency has implemented an oversight program to determine the extent to which employees are complying with established policies and procedures. While many DOE units offer training on DOE’s OUO policy, DOE does not have a departmentwide policy that requires OUO training before an employee is allowed to designate a document as OUO. As a result, some DOE employees may be identifying and marking documents for restriction from dissemination to the public or persons who do not need to know the information to perform their jobs, and yet may not be fully informed as to when it is appropriate to do so. At DOE, the level of training that employees receive is not systematic and varies considerably by unit, with some requiring OUO training at some point as a component of other periodic employee training, and others having no requirements at all. DOD similarly has no departmentwide training requirements before staff are authorized to identify, mark, and protect information as FOUO. The department relies on the individual services and field activities within DOD to determine the extent of training that employees receive. When training is provided, it is usually included as part of a unit’s overall security training, which is required for many but not all employees. There is no requirement to track which employees received FOUO training, nor is there a requirement for periodic refresher training. Some DOD components, however, do provide FOUO training for employees as part of their security awareness training. Neither DOE nor DOD knows the level of compliance with OUO and FOUO program policies and procedures because neither agency conducts any oversight to determine whether the OUO and FOUO programs are being managed well. According to a senior manager in DOE’s Office of Classification, the agency does not review OUO documents to assess whether they are properly identified and marked. This condition appears to contradict the DOE policy requiring the agency’s senior officials to assure that the OUO programs, policies, and procedures are effectively implemented. Similarly, DOD does not routinely conduct oversight of its FOUO program to assure that it is properly managed. Without oversight, neither DOE nor DOD can assure that staff are complying with agency policies. We are aware of at least one recent case in which DOE’s OUO policies were not followed. In 2005, several stories appeared in the news about revised estimates of the cost and length of the cleanup of high-level radioactive waste at DOE’s Hanford Site in southeastern Washington. This information was controversial because this multibillion-dollar project has a history of delays and cost overruns, and DOE was restricting a key document containing recently revised cost and time estimates from being released to the public. This document, which was produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for DOE, was marked Business Sensitive by DOE.