Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments (Letter Report, 03/16/2001, GAO/GAO-01-378). The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, known as e-FOIA, require federal agencies to make certain types of information available for public inspection. GAO reviewed 25 federal agencies and found that they have implemented many of the e-FOIA provisions. However, agencies have not made all required documents electronically available. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies have implemented reporting provisions required by e-FOIA, including annual workload reports. While these reports provide a good overview of FOIA activities across the government, data quality issues limit their usefulness. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: GAO-01-378 TITLE: Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments DATE: 03/16/2001 SUBJECT: Freedom of information Electronic publications Government information dissemination Electronic government Reporting requirements ****************************************************************** ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a ** ** GAO Testimony. ** ** ** ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although ** ** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but ** ** may not resemble those in the printed version. ** ** ** ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when ** ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed ** ** document's contents. ** ** ** ****************************************************************** GAO-01-378 A Report to Congressional Requesters March 2001 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments GAO- 01- 378 Lett er March 16, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson The Honorable Patrick Leahy United States Senate The Honorable Stephen Horn Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives On December 19, 2000, we briefed your offices on our review of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, known as e- FOIA. As you know, the Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make certain types of information available for public inspection. e- FOIA, among other things, was intended to improve agency responsiveness and provide for greater public access to government information electronically. In response to your request, we reviewed the progress made at 25 major federal departments and agencies in implementing the e- FOIA amendments. In brief, we found that agencies have implemented many of the e- FOIA provisions. All 25 agencies we reviewed have established electronic reading rooms. However, agencies have not made all required documents electronically available. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies have implemented reporting provisions required by e- FOIA, including annual workload reports. While these reports provide a good overview of FOIA activities across the government, data quality issues limit their usefulness. This report officially transmits the results of our work and recommendations to assist the Department of Justice in providing better oversight of federal agencies' implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. OMB and Justice's co- directors of the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) provided oral comments on the draft briefing slides. They agreed with the information provided and OIP plans to implement the recommendations. The briefing slides, as amended, are reprinted as appendix I. 1 Recommendations for To improve the public's access to government records and information, as Executive Action well as to enhance the usefulness of the information contained in agencies' annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the Attorney General direct Justice's Office of Information and Privacy to ? encourage agencies to make all required material electronically available, and ? improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing guidance that addresses the data quality issues we identified and (2) reviewing agencies' report data for completeness and consistency. We are sending copies of this report to Janice D. Schakowsky, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. In addition, we are providing copies to the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Honorable John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General. This report is also available on our home page at www. gao. gov. If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 6240 or by e- mail at koontzl@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this assignment were Michael P. Fruitman, M. Yvonne Sanchez, and Kevin M. Tansey. Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues 1 Changes were minimal and do not affect the overall content. December 19, 2000, Briefing on Appendi x I Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments Briefing to the Staffs of Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Patrick Leahy, and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives December 19, 2000 Overview Objective, Scope, and Methodology ? Background ? Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Process ? Progress on the Implementation of the Electronic FOIA Amendments (e- FOIA) ? Use of Electronic Reading Rooms ? 20- Day Determination Period ? Use of Multi- Track and Expedited Processing ? Implementation of Reporting Provisions ? Conclusions ? Recommendations ? Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations ? Appendix II: Detailed Data from 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports 2 Objective, Scope, and Methodology Objective: To review the progress made in implementing e- FOIA amendments at 25 major federal departments and agencies Scope: Reviewed e- FOIA implementation regarding the ? use of electronic reading rooms for required material and public availability of reference material for requesting records or information ? 20- day period for determining whether to comply with requests, and negotiation of scope with requester ? use of multi- track and expedited processing for improving agency responsiveness ? reporting provisions specific to the Department of Justice and all other federal agencies 3 Objective, Scope, and Methodology Methodology: ? Conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, from June through October 2000 ? Interviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Justice officials about their efforts to guide agencies' e- FOIA implementation ? Interviewed officials of eight agencies about their FOIA processes and their experiences in implementing e- FOIA; these agencies were selected because six received the largest volume of requests and two have longstanding reported problems with backlogged requests ? Met with representatives of a few nonprofit and private organizations -- identified by your offices-- that are interested in FOIA issues 4 Objective, Scope, and Methodology Methodology (continued): ? Selected the 24 major agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the CIA, which together handle 97% of FOIA requests governmentwide; for each agency, we reviewed: ? FY99 FOIA annual report data for aggregated and agencycomparative information; we did not independently verify the data ? main Internet and FOIA web sites for electronic availability of documents; our review is neither representative of the entire agency nor a determination of compliance because ? we did not check component- level FOIA web sites ? we could not determine if all applicable documents were posted ? Requested the 25 agencies to verify the results of our Internet review; 92% responded 5 Background History of FOIA and 1996 e- FOIA Amendments ? FOIA was the first law to establish a legal right of access to government information, subject to certain statutory exemptions ? Enacted in 1966, and amended in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996 ? Through e- FOIA, Congress recognized problems with agency responsiveness and tried to encourage improvements by ? providing requesters with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests to obtain faster processing ? authorizing agencies to implement multi- track processing of requests, giving them flexibility to respond to relatively simple requests more quickly ? requiring agencies to implement expedited processing for requests determined to meet criteria for “compelling need” 6 Background History of FOIA and 1996 e- FOIA Amendments (continued) ? e- FOIA also encouraged on- line, public access to government information through the use of electronic reading rooms by ? making categories of records available in electronic form( s), such as agency final opinions, policy statements/ interpretations, administrative staff manuals, frequently requested records, and an index of frequently requested records ? making agencies' annual FOIA reports electronically available ? e- FOIA provided for the public availability of FOIA- related information, specifically ? FOIA guidance, including information on multi- track processing, expedited processing, and fee schedules ? reference materials/ handbooks on requesting records or information, including an index and description of major information systems and a description of record locator systems 7 Background Roles of OMB and Justice ? OMB officials have coordinated with Justice to provide guidance and direction regarding FOIA, with Justice acting as the main point of contact for agencies ? In 1998, OMB issued guidance on developing a handbook for individuals seeking access to public information and on the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) 1 ? Within Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) has primary responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues 1 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 directed the establishment of GILS to help the public locate and access information throughout the federal government. GILS is a decentralized collection of agency- based 8 information locators using technology to direct users to relevant information resources. Overview of the FOIA Process ? In FY99, 25 agencies processed about 1.9 million FOIA requests, providing records in full for 82%; 23 agencies reported that 1.6 million requests were processed with median times of 20 days or fewer, while 140,000 were processed with medians over 20 days 1 ? Various factors determine the workflow, fees, and time needed to process a FOIA request, such as ? amount and type of information requested and where in the organization the responsive records would likely be found ? category of requester (i. e., commercial, educational) ? completeness of the request ? In responding to requests, FOIA offices interact with several external entities-- the requester, the office( s) responsible for providing the responsive records, and other federal agencies that send and receive FOIA referrals 1 Based on agencies' FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data); processing data for about 145,000 requests were not included due to either incomplete (for 2 agencies) or inconsistently reported data. 9 Overview of the FOIA Process Generic FOIA Process Agency Process Request Letter Retrieve Records ? log in “perfected” FOIA request a ? search for responsive records Receives ? create case file ? request records Request from ? scope request ? review responsive records Requester ? generate initial response ? image records (if applicable) (e. g., acknowledgment letter) Prepare Records for Release Approve Release of Records Agency ? make redactions ? supervisory review of redacted Releases ? apply exemption codes records ? calculate fees ? generate response Records to ? approve release Requester Note: At any point in the process, an agency may refer a request to another agency for processing or consultation. a A FOIA request that adequately describes the records sought, that has been received by the FOIA office of the agency/ component in possession of the records, and for which there is no remaining question about fees. 10 Overview of the FOIA Process Retrieval of Records and Line- by- Line Review Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that processing complex FOIA requests is labor- intensive because ? FOIA offices, as a rule, are not the owners of the responsive records and are dependent on other units to search for and provide the requested information-- generally not a high priority for them ? searching for and retrieving responsive records often takes a significant amount of effort, especially when responding to broad (e. g., agencywide) requests ? some requests involve hundreds or thousands of pages that require line- by- line review to ensure that the proper legal exemptions are applied 11 Overview of the FOIA Process Size and Content of Records Affects Disposition of Requests, Which Varies Across Agencies ? Every request is different-- the type, size, and content of the responsive records may require significant processing time ? Examples of varying effects on disposition of requests: ? for 93% of its requests, USDA provided records in full, generally because they were requests for individuals' own records, which require less review for exemptions; of its 80,000 requests processed, exemptions were taken 2,727 times, 55% for privacyrelated reasons ? for 28% of its requests, NSF provided records in full; of its 169 requests processed, exemptions were taken 118 times, 71% for privacy- related reasons Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 12 AID CIA USDA DOC DOD ED DOE HHS HUD DOI DOJ DOL State Overview of the FOIA Process Disposition of Processed DOT Treas Requests, by Agency 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Grants Partial Grants Denials Not Disclosed for Other Reasons Note: HUD reported a single total for denials and partial grants FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 13 VA EPA FEMA GSA NASA NSF NRC Source: OPM SBA SSA Overview of the FOIA Process Need for Additional Staff Cited as a Barrier in Implementing e- FOIA ? Officials at seven of the eight agencies-- and representatives of nonprofit and private organizations-- interviewed said agencies need more staff to improve their responsiveness to FOIA requests and decrease their number of pending requests ? Officials at three agencies cited the lack of available people with the knowledge and experience to review and redact classified records, due in part to “special searches” (e. g., the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act) ? According to FBI officials, over the past 4 years, the FBI has reduced its backlog of pending requests from about 18,000 to 4,000, primarily due to its staffing increase ? Echoing a 1993 Attorney General memo to agency heads, OIP officials see a lack of funds and other resources as the greatest barrier to more effective e- FOIA implementation 14 Overview of FOIA Process Use of IT Tools in Processing Requests ? Agencies are increasingly looking at automated FOIA processing to enhance the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of their operations ? Capabilities include: ? Scanning and Imaging: scanning and converting paper documents to electronic images or text; once converted, information can be searched and modified electronically at a computer workstation ? Workflow: creating and tracking cases, routing information throughout an office, and collecting and reporting workload data ? Document Management: storing, redacting, and archiving responsive records ? At least 8 of the 25 agencies and/ or their components use FOIA application software 15 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms ? In determining the electronic or public availability of documents, we categorized the results of our Internet review as: ? available -- found the required material ? partially available -- found a portion of the required material ? not found -- did not find any of the required material ? For 16 agencies we found FOIA guidance on agency- specific processes and fees, while for the remaining 9 we found material for at least 2 of the 4 areas (p. 17) ? For 15 agencies we found documents for all required categories of records, while for the remaining 10 we found documents for at least 3 of the 6 required categories (p. 18) ? For 12 agencies we found reference material addressing all 4 areas specified by e- FOIA, 6 addressed 2 to 3 areas, and the remaining 7 only addressed 1 area (p. 19) 16 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Available FOIA Guidance = Available = Partially available = Not found n/ a = Not applicable; agency uses single- track process 17 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Electronic Availability of Required Documents = Available = Partially available = Not found n/ a = Not applicable 18 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Public Availability of Reference Material = Available = Partially available = Not found 19 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Web Page Features Used to Facilitate Public Access ? FOIA web page (all 25 agencies) ? FOIA web page link on agency's home page (19) ? List of FOIA contacts or links to FOIA offices (16 of the 17 agencies with multiple FOIA offices) ? Programmatic information on obtaining public services (25) ? Links from agency web pages to other organizational units (23) ? Web site search feature (24) ? Ability to submit FOIA requests electronically (13) Note: Justice established a feature in its newsletter called “Web Site Watch” that encourages the development of agency Internet sites for FOIA purposes. According to Justice officials, the use of e- mail and the Internet for submitting requests electronically will increase in the future, as agencies become more technically sophisticated. 20 Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Internet Provides Vehicle for Making Information Available to the Public ? Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they ? are continuing to improve their electronic reading rooms ? use the Internet to provide information to the public well beyond what e- FOIA requires, which they hope will decrease the number of FOIA requests ? OMB officials also said agencies are making a lot more information available on the Internet beyond e- FOIA (e. g., the FirstGov initiative 1 ) ? Officials at six of the eight agencies stated that while more information is available on the Internet, the public may be generating more FOIA requests or more complex ones because ? individuals are learning more about the Internet and government services ? highly publicized topics in the media generate a lot of attention for federal web sites 1 FirstGov is a portal designed to provide a centralized location to find information from local, state, and federal government agency web sites. 21 20- Day Determination Period Agencies Consider Requirement Impractical ? FOIA requires agencies to (1) determine within 20 working days whether to fulfill requests and immediately notify requesters, and (2) make releasable records promptly available ? Despite the implication of a two- step process in the statutory language, Justice and other agency officials said that, in most cases, agencies make the determination and notify the requester concurrent with their final response to the FOIA request ? Officials at seven of the eight agencies stated that the 20- day requirement was impractical because ? this period has often expired before agencies have retrieved the records needed, or are in a position to make a determination 1 ? it would not be cost- effective to issue determination letters separate from final responses in all required cases 1 For example, CIA acknowledgment letters cite the agency's backlog and include language that states (in case the requester chooses not to wait for responsive records), “... Since we cannot respond within the 20 22 working days stipulated by the Act, you have the right to consider this as a denial and may appeal....” 20- Day Determination Period Agencies' Median Processing Time ? Justice officials said that, as a practical matter, they consider the e- FOIA provision to report data on median processing days the basis for measuring compliance with the 20- day requirement ? While we have concerns regarding the data reliability of agencies' FY99 FOIA annual report, the best available data on median processing times indicate that for 19 agencies ? 79% of requests were processed on a single- track system with medians ranging from 6 to 53 days 1 ? 11% were processed as simple requests with medians ranging from 7 to 48 days ? 8% were processed as complex requests with medians ranging from 17 to 308 days ? 2% were processed as expedited requests with medians ranging from 2 to 168 days 1 A single- track system processes all requests on a first- in, first- out basis (FIFO); a multi- track processing system categorizes them in 2 or more tracks (e. g., simple and complex), and then processes them on a FIFO basis. 23 Requests Processed 1 2 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 20- Day Determination Period Distribution of Requests Processed by Median Days 1,117,898 a 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90, 000 80, 000 70, 000 15 16 17 19 20 21 25 26 28 29 30 38 39 45 60, 000 50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 20, 000 10, 000 0 89% of requests Median Days Note: Except for the end points (1 and 2,337), only medians with over 1,000 requests are included in the graph; data from 23 agencies a Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 24 53 66 104 187 228 308 2,337 20- Day Determination Period Discussion of Scope Has Improved Responsiveness ? Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they contacted requesters, as needed, about limiting the scope of their requests to improve responsiveness when the 20- day period could not be met ? Overall, they saw this e- FOIA provision as beneficial ? Officials cited examples of individuals who were not aware of the extent of records and associated fees involved in their requests ? For example, to deal with growing backlogs of requests, in 1997 the FBI implemented a “negotiation team” to communicate and negotiate with FOIA requesters of voluminous records 25 Use of Multi- Track and Expedited Processing ? Multi- track processing is an agency- optional system in which simple requests requiring relatively minimal review are placed on one processing track, and more voluminous and complex requests are placed on one or more other tracks; expedited processing involves an agency decision to expedite the handling of a request when a requester has shown an exceptional need or urgency for the records that warrants prioritization over earlier requests ? 18 agencies reported data for multi- track processing and all 25 agencies reported data for expedited processing 1 ? Officials at seven of the eight agencies interviewed said the multitrack provision has been helpful, although two of the seven said it has produced only marginal gains ? Officials of all eight agencies said they consider requests for expedited processing, but this is granted in few cases 1 FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 26 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) Justice implemented provisions in e- FOIA that direct the U. S. Attorney General to ? develop, in consultation with OMB, reporting and performance guidelines for agencies' FOIA annual reports ? make these annual reports available from a single electronic access point ? submit a Justice annual report to include 1) a list of FOIA court cases, exemptions involved, disposition of each case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed 2) a description of activities undertaken by Justice to encourage agency compliance 27 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) (continued) Justice reported the following activities, primarily through OIP, for 1999: ? provided about 3, 000 responses to requests for assistance ? issued policy guidance ? distributed a quarterly newsletter to about 5,500 subscribers ? developed research and reference materials, such as the Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview ? provided about 180 training presentations ? briefed individuals interested in FOIA operations, such as representatives of foreign governments ? provided responses to congressional and public inquiries Officials at all eight agencies interviewed provided positive feedback about the support they received from OIP 28 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Reporting Inconsistencies and Data Quality Problems Limit Usefulness of FY99 Annual Report Data ? According to OIP officials, they frequently provide guidance in response to questions from agencies on preparation of their annual reports, and receive these reports, but do not review them for content or accuracy ? e- FOIA authorizes Justice to “establish additional requirements for such reports as the Attorney General determines may be useful.” ? While we did not perform a full validation of the agencies' annual reports to determine their accuracy, we did identify a number of data deficiencies in preparing aggregated and agency- comparative information 29 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Examples of Reporting Inconsistencies and Data Quality Problems ? Unclear criteria for defining a FOIA request: Of the three federal agencies that deliver health care services, VA counted first- party requests for medical records as FOIA requests in FY99, resulting in a 447% increase; in contrast, HHS only counted them as Privacy Act requests, and DOD was unable to verify if this type of request was properly counted ? Different ways of counting requests: Officials of at least three components within Justice stated that they counted each “subject” on whom information was requested as a separate request, while those at the other seven agencies interviewed said they counted each request letter as one request 30 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Reporting Inconsistencies in “Compliance with Time Limits” Section Further Limit Use of Agency Data In addition to data discrepancies we noted, 12 agencies reported certain limitations associated with their data in the section of the FOIA annual report that addressed compliance with time limits; for example: ? Understated “processing” data: Four agencies have incomplete data because they did not report median days by type of multi- track process for either some or all of their components ? Overstated “processing” data: EPA reported action office assignments 1 rather than requests processed, which overstated its count by 142% (a difference of 23,707) ? Inconsistent ways of reporting median processing time: OIP guidance states that, when practical, agencies should report the median processing time in working days, but only 5 of the 25 agencies reported doing so; 5 reported by calendar days, 1 reported by both, and 14 did not state a basis; OIP officials said it should be assumed these 14 agencies reported in working days 1 EPA defines action office assignments as “The EPA component office( s) where the FOI office assigns a request for action and direct reply to the requester. Many initial requests are assigned to multiple components 31 for separate responses/ action.” Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data for Requests Received, Processed, and Pending ? The 25 agencies received 2,000,000 119% more requests in FY99 than in the previous year 1,500,000 ? VA accounted for about 90% 1,000,000 of the increase in FY99 for requests received and 500,000 processed due to a change in reporting of first- party 0 medical record requests Received Processed Pending ? For FY99, five agencies-- VA, FY98 869,576 863,849 125,926 Justice, SSA, DOD, and FY99 1,908,083 1,883,310 151,141 USDA-- received 89% of the total requests received Note: FY99 reported data are used for “requests pending at the end of the FY98” because of discrepancies noted between FY98 and FY99 annual reports Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (self- reported data). 32 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on the Disposition of Processed Requests ? Grants are agency decisions to Partial Grants disclose all records in full 4% Denials ? Partial grants are agency decisions 2% to disclose a record in part, deleting information determined to Not Disclosed for be exempt under one or more Other Reasons exemptions, or a decision to 12% disclose some records in their entirety, but to withhold others in whole or in part ? Denials are agency decisions not to release any part of the Grants requested record( s) because all 82% information in the record( s) is determined to be exempt under one or more exemptions Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 33 Percentage Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Statutory Exemptions Used 30 22% 21% 20 14% 9% 8% 10 6% 7% 5% 3% 3% 0.1% 1% 0.1% 0.02% 0 1 2 3 45 67a 7b7c7d 7e7f8 9 Exemptions Exemptions are for matters that are (1) to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (7) compiled for law enforcement purposes that: (2) related to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency (7a) interfere with enforcement proceedings (3) specially exempted from disclosure by statute (7b) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information (7c) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5) inter- or intra- agency memos or letters not available by law (7d) disclose the identity of a confidential source (6) personnel and medical files which constitute an unwarranted (7e) risk circumvention of the law invasion of privacy (7f) endanger the life or physical safety of any individual (8) for the regulation of financial institutions Note: HHS and Treas/ IRS “7” exemptions included under “7a” (9) geological and geophysical information concerning wells Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 34 Percentage Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Other Reasons Records Were Not Disclosed 40 33% 27% 30 20 11% 8% 6% 10 5% 4% 4% 2% 0 No Other Referred Not Request Duplicate Not An Not Fee Record Proper Withdrawn Request Agency Reasonably Related Request Record Described Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 35 Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Disposition of Appeals ? Appeal rates for the 25 Not Disclosed agencies ranged from 0. 2% for Other for VA to 13% for Interior, Reasons Upheld with an overall agency 48% 32% average of 4% ? About 10, 400 appeals were processed, which is 3% of the total requests processed, excluding requests that were fully granted Reversed Partially 5% Reversed 15% Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 36 Conclusions Many e- FOIA provisions have been implemented: ? Agencies use electronic reading rooms to provide access to documents and reference materials; however, not all required documents were electronically available as of October 2000 ? Agency officials interviewed consider the 20- day period for determining whether to comply with requests impractical, but view discussions with requesters as beneficial ? Of the 1. 9 million requests processed in FY99, 1.7 million requests (89%) were processed with medians of 21 days or less ? Agencies have implemented multi- track and expedited processing ? Agencies' annual reports provide an overview of FOIA activities, but data quality issues limit their usefulness 37 Recommendations To improve the public's access to government records and information, as well as to enhance the usefulness of the information contained in agencies' annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the Attorney General direct Justice's Office of Information and Privacy to encourage agencies to make all required material electronically available, and improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing guidance that addresses the data quality issues we identified and (2) reviewing agencies' report data for completeness and consistency. 38 Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations AID Agency for International Development DOT Department of Transportation CIA* Central Intelligence Agency Treas Department of the Treasury USDA* Department of Agriculture VA* Department of Veterans Affairs DOC Department of Commerce EPA Environmental Protection Agency DOD* Department of Defense FEMA Federal Emergency Management ED Department of Education Agency DOE Department of Energy GSA General Services Administration HHS* Department of Health and Human Services NASA National Aeronautics and Space HUD Department of Housing and Urban Administration Development NSF National Science Foundation DOI Department of the Interior NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOJ* Department of Justice OPM Office of Personnel Management DOL Department of Labor SBA Small Business Administration State* Department of State SSA* Social Security Administration * We interviewed FOIA officials of these agencies 39 Requests Number of AID 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports CIA USDA Appendix DOC DOD II: Requests Received 1,151,326 a 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 ED c d DOE HHS b HUD a Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values b HUD OIG data not included c DOI DOJ change in reporting of first- party State DOL record requests DOT Tr eas VA EPA FEMA GSA Reflects a 447% increase over FY98 due to a medical d Reflects a 114% increase in workload, primarily due to genealogy research by requesters FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported NASA NSF NRC OPM SBA SSA Source: data). 40 Number of Requests AID CIA USDA DOC DOD ED DOE HHS Pending FY99 41 HUD DOI DOJ DOL State DOT Treas VA EPA FEMA GSA NASA NSF NRC Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Pending Requests at End of Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Pending FY98 Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). OPM SBA SSA AID CIA USDA DOC DOD ED DOE HHS HUD DOI DOJ DOL State Appendix II: 25 DOT Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Proportion of Pending Requests to Total Workload a b 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% a “Total workload” is the total of processed and pending requests Pending Requests Processed Requests 42 Treas VA EPA FEMA GSA NASA NSF NRC OPM b Includes FBI's proportion of 23% pending requests Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). SBA SSA Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Median Days to Process Requests 350 300 250 200 150 100 Median Days 50 b, c AID CIA USD A DOC DOD ED DOE HUD DOI DOL 0 a State Simple Complex Single- Track 20- day requirement Notes: ? Data for six agencies are not shown above: HHS, Treasury, NASA, and SSA because their processing time data were incomplete, and Justice and FEMA because they reported component- by- component only, and not on an agencywide basis ? Agencies reported median days in calendar days (AID, DOD, ED, State, FEMA), working days (EPA, GSA, NASA, NSF, SBA), both calendar and working days (DOT), or did not state a basis for reporting (CIA, USDA, DOC, DOE, HUD, DOI, DOJ, DOL, VA, NSF, OPM, HHS, Treasury, SSA); OIP states that, when practical, agencies should report the median in DOT VA EPA guidance working days a State reported that median days are based on the dates that requests were received or acknowledgement letters sent, which in some cases may include requests that are not yet “perfected” b EPA counted requests by assignments rather than requests processed and counted processing data under tracks labeled as "basic," "unusual," and "exceptional;" we categorized unusual and exceptional requests as "complex" c EPA's for data for GSA NSF median 99% of its complex requests and 8 NRC days for "complex" is based on the 25 days reported excludes requests processed with a median of 55 days Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 43 OPM SBA Median Days FOIA AID CIA USDA DOC DOD ED DOE HUD DOI DOJ DOL State DOT Treas VA Agencies' FY99 EPA FEMA GSA NASA NSF Appendix II: 25 NRC OPM SBA Reports Median Days Requests Were Pending at the End of the Fiscal Year 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 a b Note: HHS and SSA are not included because of incomplete data a Includes FBI's reported median days of 252 b NRC data excludes 4 requests pending with a median of 198 days Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 44 Staff Number of Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports FOIA Staffing 1 ,200 Part- Time Full- Time 1 ,000 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 a d c a AID CIA USDA DOC DOD ED DOE HHS 0 c HUD b a Adjustment made for USDA, DOC, and NSF in reported part- time work- years to reflect reported total work years b DOE data reflect work DOI DOJ DOL State DOT Treas VA EPA FEMA GSA NASA NSF NRC OPM SBA years reported; however, there is a discrepancy in the number reported for “total work years” c HUD and GSA noted that data are understated and do not adequately portray agency work- year investment d Includes FBI's reported full- time staff of 671 Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 45 SSA Costs FOIA Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Total FOIA Costs a b Note: GSA is not included because it did not provide cost data a DOE reported a discrepancy of $654, 061 between processing and total costs; we used processing costs b Includes FBI's reported costs of $33 million Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 46   !" # #! #$ " % Lett er (310311) GAO United States General Accounting Office Page 1 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Page 2 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Page 3 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Page 4 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 5 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 6 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 7 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 8 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 9 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 10 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 11 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 12 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 13 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 14 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 15 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 16 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 17 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 18 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 19 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 20 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 21 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 22 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 23 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 24 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 25 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 26 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 27 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 28 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 29 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 30 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 31 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 32 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 33 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 34 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 35 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 36 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 37 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 38 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 39 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 40 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 41 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 42 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 43 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 44 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 45 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 46 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 47 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 48 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Page 49 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to: info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www. gao. gov To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs Contact one: ? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm ? e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00 *** End of document. ***