GAO-02-493, Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-493 
entitled 'Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments' which was released on 
August 30, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



August 2002:



Information Management:



Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information 

Act Amendments:



GAO-02-493:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



No Clear Trends in Agency Processing Times, but Backlogs Are Growing:



Progress in On-Line Availability Is Continuing, but Additional Agency 

Attention Is Needed:



Views of FOIA Officials and FOIA Requesters Differ Regarding Impact of 

the Post-September 11 Environment:



Justice Is Continuing Actions to Implement Our 

Recommendations:



Conclusions:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Appendix II: Overview of Agency FOIA Processing



Appendix III: Further Details Regarding Agency Workload Analysis



Disposition of Requests:



Use of Exemptions:



Administrative Appeals:



Fees:



Costs:



Staffing (FTE):



Component-Level Reporting:



Tables:



Table 1: Agency Processing Times, by Track:



Table 2: Processing Times for Expedited Requests:



Table 3: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions:



Table 4: Agency FOIA FTEs, Total Reported Costs, and Reported Fees 

Collected (Self-Reported):



Figures:



Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process:



Figure 2: Median Days for Single-Track Processing:



Figure 3: Median Days for Simple Processing:



Figure 4: Median Days for Complex Processing:



Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests for 25 Agencies:



Figure 6: Total FOIA Requests (Without VA):



Figure 7: Total FOIA Requests Received, by Agencies:



Figure 8: Total Pending Requests for 25 Agencies, 24 Agencies (Without 

VA), and VA Only:



Figure 9: Pending Requests at End of Year for 25 Agencies:



Figure 10: Pending Requests Divided by Received Requests:



Figure 11: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies:



Figure 12: Median Age of Backlog:



Figure 13: Agencies with Pending Median Days Below 100:



Figure 14: On-Line Availability of Elements as Required by e-FOIA:



Figure 15: Use of the Web to Make Reference Material and FOIA 

Regulations Publicly Available:



Figure 16: Features that Facilitate Public Access:



Figure 17: Disposition of Initial Requests:



Figure 18: Disposition of Initial Requests (Without VA):



Figure 19: Total Grants as a Percentage of Total Dispoition:



Figure 20: Partial Grants as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



Figure 21: Denials as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



Figure 22: Nondisclosures as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



Figure 23: Exemptions Used by 25 Agencies:



Figure 24: Aggregated Data on the Disposition of Appeals:



Figure 25: Total Agency Reported Costs:



Figure 26: Fees as Percentage of Agency’s Reported Cost:



Figure 27: Reported Cost per Request:



Figure 28: Reported Cost per Request Comparison:



Figure 29: Reported FTEs per Request, by Agency:



Figure 30: Trend Toward Component-based Reporting of FOIA Data:



Abbreviations:



AID: Agency for International Development:



CIA: Central Intelligence Agency:



DOC: Department of Commerce:



DOD: Department of Defense:



DOE: Department of Energy:



DOI: Department of the Interior:



DOJ: Department of Justice:



DOL: Department of Labor:



DOT: Department of Transportation:



ED: Department of Education:



e-FOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments:



EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:



FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:



FOIA: Freedom of Information Act:



FTE: full time equivalent:



GILS: Government Information Locator Service:



GSA: General Services Administration:



HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:



HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:



NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:



NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:



NSF: National Science Foundation:



OIP: Office of Information and Privacy:



OMB: Office of Management and Budget:



OPM: Office of Personnel Management:



SBA: Small Business Administration:



SSA: Social Security Administration:



VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:



USDA: Department of Agriculture:



Letter:



August 30, 2002:



The Honorable Patrick Leahy

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate:



The Honorable Stephen Horn

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 

 Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives:



In our open society, public access to information about the government 

and its operations is a strongly held value. The Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) has been a valuable tool through which the public has been 

able to learn about the operation and decisions of the federal 

government. Specific requests by the public for information through 

FOIA have led to the disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing 

in the government and the identification of unsafe consumer products, 

harmful drugs, and serious health hazards.



The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act (e-FOIA) Amendments were 

intended to extend the principles of FOIA to information stored 

electronically and improve public access to agency information, in part 

by requiring more materials to be available electronically. The 

amendments were also intended to ensure agency compliance with 

statutory time limits for responding to FOIA requests. As you 

requested, this report addresses the progress that federal agencies 

have made in implementing the e-FOIA amendments since our previous 

March 2001 report.[Footnote 1]



Last year’s report disclosed that data quality issues limited the 

usefulness of agencies’ annual FOIA reports and that agencies had not 

provided on-line access to all of the information required by e-FOIA. 

We therefore recommended that the Attorney General direct the 

Department of Justice to improve the reliability of data in the 

agencies’ annual reports by providing guidance addressing the data 

quality issues we identified and by reviewing agencies’ report data for 

completeness and consistency. We further recommended that the Attorney 

General direct the department to enhance the public’s access to 

government records and information by encouraging agencies to make all 

of the required materials available electronically.



As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this update were to:



* determine the progress that the 25 federal agencies studied have made 

in processing FOIA requests;



* determine the progress that the 25 agencies have made in developing 

on-line access to materials as required by e-FOIA (often referred to as 

“electronic reading room” access);



* provide information on the views of FOIA officials and requesters 

regarding the impact of the post-September 11, 2001, environment on 

implementation; and:



* determine what actions Justice has taken on our previous 

recommendations.



We assessed the 25 agencies’ implementation progress by analyzing data 

from the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 annual reports they submitted to 

the Attorney General, and by analyzing their department-level and FOIA-

related Web sites to determine whether materials were available. We 

also interviewed FOIA officials at the eight major agencies covered in 

our previous report. To obtain information on the impact of the post-

September 11 environment and of actions taken by Justice on our 

previous recommendations, we drew upon interviews with officials in the 

eight agencies, Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), and 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as well as information from 

members of the FOIA requester community. The requester community 

members we contacted, most of whom had been identified during our 

previous study, are widely recognized for their expertise and 

involvement in issues pertaining to use of the act, and advocate public 

access to government information. Details of our scope and methodology 

are included as appendix I.



Results in Brief:



We were unable to identify any clear trends in processing time because 

agencies have made changes in how they report these data. These changes 

improved data quality but also reduced comparability among years. For 

fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the number of requests received and 

processed appears for most agencies-except the Department of Veterans 

Affairs-to peak in fiscal year 2000 and decline slightly in fiscal year 

2001. However, agency backlogs of pending requests are substantial and 

growing governmentwide. Agency officials attributed this growth 

primarily to the increasing complexity of the requests.



Although agencies are continuing to make progress in making material 

required by e-FOIA available on line, not all of the required materials 

are yet available. In addition, materials were sometimes difficult to 

find, and Web site links were not always functioning properly. This 

situation appears to reflect a lack of adequate attention and 

continuing review by agency officials to ensure that these materials 

are available.



Regarding the post-September 11 environment, agency officials and FOIA 

requesters view the impacts differently. Agency officials characterized 

the effects on FOIA implementation as relatively minor, except for mail 

delays associated with the anthrax problem. In contrast, members of the 

requester community expressed general concern about information 

dissemination and access to government information in light of removal 

of information from government Web sites after September 11. In 

addition, some requesters characterized Justice policies issued since 

that time as representing a shift from a “right to know” to a “need to 

know” that could discourage the public from making requests. In any 

event, the effects of the post-September 11 environment, if any, may 

not be known for some time because data on requests processed after 

September 2001 will not be available until early 2003. Further, any 

effects may not be clear until denials of information during this time 

period are appealed, litigated, and decided-a process that could take 

several years.



Justice has acted to implement our previous recommendations. First, to 

improve the quality of agency annual reports, it has issued 

supplemental guidance, augmented its training programs, and continued 

reviewing the reports. Although these actions have improved data 

quality, numerous problems remain. Justice’s efforts to implement this 

recommendation are ongoing. Second, Justice implemented our 

recommendation to issue guidance encouraging agencies to make all 

required materials available on line, and, as a result, agencies 

continue to make progress in this area. However, not all required 

elements were available on agency Web sites, some were difficult to 

locate, and Web site links were not always functioning. Justice 

officials recognize the need for agencies to make further improvements 

and stated that, in agency training sessions, they plan to continue to 

reinforce the need for full e-FOIA compliance and periodic agency 

review of Web site content, and to facilitate sharing of best 

practices.



In providing oral comments on a draft of this report, a Justice OIP 

codirector stated that the department generally agreed with the 

report’s findings and conclusions.



Background:



FOIA established a legal right of access to government records and 

information, on the basis of the principles of openness and 

accountability in government. Before the act, an individual seeking 

access faced the burden of establishing a right to examine government 

records. FOIA also established a “right to know” standard for access, 

instead of a “need to know,” and shifted the burden of proof from the 

individual to the government agency seeking to deny access. FOIA was 

enacted in 1966 and was amended in 1974, 1976, 1986, and 1996. The 

amendments in 1974 through 1986 made changes in procedures, modified 

exemptions from FOIA, protected sensitive law enforcement information, 

and created new fee and fee-waiver provisions. The 1996 amendments are 

known as the e-FOIA amendments, discussed in detail later in this 

section.



FOIA provides public access to government information through two 

means: affirmative agency disclosure and public request for disclosure. 

Affirmative agency disclosure takes place in one of two ways. FOIA 

requires disclosure through Federal Register publication of 

information, such as descriptions of agency organizations, functions, 

procedures, rules, and statements of general policy. This has come to 

be known as the FOIA publication requirement. The act also requires 

disclosure of final opinions and orders, specific policy statements, 

certain administrative manuals, and certain records previously released 

under FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying. This 

has come to be known as the FOIA reading room requirement.



Public request for disclosure of records is the most well-known part of 

FOIA. Any member of the public may use it to request access to 

information held by federal agencies, without showing a need or reasons 

for seeking the information. Agencies may deny access to material 

(e.g., by withholding records or redacting information) that falls 

within any of nine statutory categories of exemptions (see table 3 in 

app. II). There are also FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive 

records held by law enforcement agencies. Agencies have statutory 

timelines for determining whether to comply with FOIA requests, making 

determinations with respect to appeals of adverse determinations, and 

determining whether to provide expedited processing of FOIA requests. 

Requesters are entitled to be told the reason for denials, to appeal 

denials, and to challenge them in court. Under the act, agencies are 

required to submit annual reports on these FOIA activities to the 

Attorney General.



Figure 1 provides an overview of a generic agency FOIA process, from 

receipt of a request to the release of records. A brief overview of 

agency FOIA processing is included as appendix II.



Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process:



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO-01-378.



[End of figure]



The 1986 FOIA amendments established the current fee structure. 

Agencies may assess three levels of fees, each with statutory 

limitations, according to the type of requester and the intended use of 

the information sought. The first level of fees includes charges for 

document search, review, and duplication. These charges apply when 

records are requested for commercial use, defined in the OMB fee 

schedule guidelines as “a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, 

trade or profit interests of the requester or the person on whose 

behalf the request is being made.” The second level of fees exempts 

educational or noncommercial scientific institutions and 

representatives of the news media from being charged search and review 

fees when records are not requested for commercial:



use.[Footnote 2] In such instances, these requesters are charged only 

for document duplication. The third level of fees, which applies to all 

requesters who do not fall within either of the preceding two fee 

levels, consists of reasonable charges for document search and 

duplication.



Except for commercial-use requesters, agencies must provide the first 

100 pages of duplication, as well as the first 2 hours of search time, 

without cost to the requester. Agencies may not charge fees if the 

government’s cost of collecting and processing the fee is likely to 

equal or exceed the amount of the fee itself. Agencies also may not 

require a requester to make an advance payment (i.e., payment before 

work is begun or continued on a request) unless the agency first 

estimates that the assessable fee is likely to exceed $250, or unless 

the requester has previously failed to pay a properly assessed fee in a 

timely manner (i.e., within 30 days of the billing date). Agencies may, 

however, require payment before records that have been processed are 

released.



Roles of Justice and OMB in FOIA Implementation:



Justice oversees agencies’ compliance with FOIA and is the primary 

source of policy guidance for agencies. Justice’s specific requirements 

under the act are to:



* make agencies’ annual FOIA reports available through a single 

electronic access point and notify Congress as to their availability;



* in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required agency 

reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a 

similar format; and:



* submit an annual report on FOIA statistics and the efforts undertaken 

by Justice to encourage agency compliance.



In addition, FOIA requires OMB to issue guidelines to “provide for a 

uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.”[Footnote 3] Agencies are 

required to conform their fee schedules to the OMB fee schedule 

guidelines. E-FOIA requires each agency head to prepare and make 

publicly available reference material or a guide for requesting 

information from the agency, including a handbook for obtaining public 

information.[Footnote 4] OMB issued an agency guidance memorandum for 

developing such handbooks.[Footnote 5]



The 1996 e-FOIA Amendments:



These amendments sought to strengthen the requirement that agencies 

respond to FOIA requests in a timely manner and reduce their backlogs 

of pending requests. To that end, the amendments made a number of 

procedural changes, including:



* providing requesters with an opportunity to limit the scope of their 

requests so that the requests could be processed more quickly;



* authorizing agencies to implement multitrack processing, so they 

could process requests by single and complex tracks, instead of 

processing all requests on a single-track, first-in/first-out basis 

(thus giving agencies the flexibility to respond to relatively simple 

requests more quickly); and:



* requiring agencies to expedite processing for requests meeting the 

criteria for “compelling need” that warrants prioritization over other 

requests that were made earlier, with the requirement that an agency 

determine within 10 days whether to provide such expedited processing.



The amendments also required agencies to determine within 20 working 

days (an increase from the previous 10 days)whether a request would be 

fulfilled and to notify the requester immediately. Congress did not 

establish a statutory deadline for making releasable records available, 

but instead required agencies to make them available promptly.



E-FOIA encouraged on-line, public access to government information by 

requiring agencies to make six specific types of records, created on or 

after November 1, 1996, available in electronic form.[Footnote 6] The 

six elements that the amendments require agencies to make available on 

line are:



* agency final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, 

as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;



* statements of policy and interpretations that have been adopted by 

the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;



* administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a 

member of the public;



* copies of records that have been released to any person through FOIA 

and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency 

determines have become or are likely to become the subject of 

subsequent requests for substantially the same records;



* a general index of the “frequently requested records” referred to in 

the item above;and:



* the annual FOIA report.



Agencies are also required to make eight types of related information 

and reference materials publicly available. The law did not explicitly 

require these elements to be made publicly available in electronic 

form. These are:



* FOIA processing regulations,



* multitrack processing regulations,



* expedited processing regulations,



* FOIA fee schedule,



* an index of major information systems,



* a description of major information systems,



* a description of agency record locator systems, and:



* reference materials or handbooks on how to request records or 

information.



Finally, agencies have incorporated features that facilitate public 

access to government information into their Web sites. These features, 

which are not required by law, are:



* information on obtaining public services,



* a FOIA link on the agency home page,



* a FOIA Web page,



* Web site search features,



* ability for requesters to submit requests electronically,



* electronic links to FOIA office(s), and:



* electronic links to program divisions.



According to legislative history, using electronic access to make more 

affirmative disclosure of the frequently requested material was 

expected to reduce additional FOIA requests for the same 

material.[Footnote 7] This was expected to enable agencies to make 

better use of their limited resources to complete other, more complex, 

requests on time. Because the affirmative disclosure provisions had 

historically been considered to provide access through a physical 

reading room, the expanded on-line access provisions, including 

frequently requested records and other required elements, have commonly 

come to be called “electronic reading room” access.[Footnote 8]



The e-FOIA amendments also made changes to agency reporting 

requirements. The amendments changed the reporting period from calendar 

year to fiscal year and allowed agencies more time to prepare their 

annual reports. Agencies were to provide these reports to the Attorney 

General by February 1 of each year and to make them available to the 

public in electronic form. The Attorney General is required to make all 

agency reports available on line at a single electronic access point 

and report to Congress no later than April 1 of each year that these 

reports are available in electronic form.



E-FOIA also expanded on the previous reporting requirements. For 

example, it added requirements for information regarding denials, 

appeals, the number of requests pending at the end of the fiscal year, 

the median number of days that requests have been pending, the median 

number of days required to process requests, the amount of fees 

collected, and the number of staff devoted to FOIA processing. 

According to legislative history, these changes were intended to make 

the reports more useful to the public and Congress by providing more 

visibility into response times, reasons for not providing a response, 

resources and workloads, and backlogs of pending requests. The intent 

was to allow meaningful comparisons among agencies about performance 

and allow Congress to monitor individual agencies’ progress over time.



Justice Has Issued Guidance on FOIA Implementation:



Within Justice, OIP has lead responsibility for providing guidance and 

support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. OIP first issued guidelines 

for agency preparation and submission of annual reports in the spring 

of 1997 and has periodically issued additional guidance. OIP also 

periodically issues guidance on compliance, provides training, and 

maintains a counselors service to provide expert, one-on-one assistance 

to agency FOIA staff. Further, it also makes a variety of FOIA and 

Privacy Act resources available to agencies and the public via the 

Justice Web site and on-line bulletins.



In addition to OIP guidance, the Attorney General has often issued a 

policy memorandum at the beginning of a new administration. Such policy 

memorandums have been issued in 1977, 1981, 1993, and 2001.



The 1993 Attorney General memorandum established an overall 

“presumption of disclosure” and promoted discretionary disclosures 

(when an exemption might otherwise be used to withhold information) to 

achieve “maximum responsible disclosure” under FOIA. This guidance 

stated that Justice policy would be to defend an agency’s use of a FOIA 

exemption to withhold information only when the agency reasonably 

anticipated that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected 

by that exemption (a “foreseeable harm” standard). Otherwise, where 

information might technically or arguably fall within an exemption, the 

1993 memorandum indicated that it ought not to be withheld from a 

requester unless it was necessary to do so. The 1993 Attorney General 

guidance remained in effect through fiscal year 2001.



The current Attorney General memorandum, issued October 12, 2001, 

replaced the 1993 memorandum. It stresses balancing the important 

interest of a “well-informed citizenry” with “protecting other 

fundamental values that are held by our society. Among them are 

safeguarding our national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our 

law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information 

and, not least, preserving personal privacy.” Accordingly, the Attorney 

General instructed agencies:



“…to carefully consider the protection of all such values and interests 

when making disclosure determinations under the FOIA. Any discretionary 

decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the 

FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the 

institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be 

implicated by disclosure of the information.”:



Given this “balancing interests” policy, the 2001 guidance establishes 

a “sound legal basis” standard for Justice’s defending an agency’s 

withholding of information:



“When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold 

records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of 

Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis 

or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of 

other agencies to protect other important records.”:



OIP followed up on the 2001 Attorney General memorandum with guidance 

focusing on protection of sensitive material pertaining to 

vulnerability assessments, safeguard circumventions, and critical 

infrastructure protections.



Following the events of September 11, the Information Security 

Oversight Office in the National Archives and Records 

Administration[Footnote 9] and OIP developed additional guidance for 

reviewing government information regarding weapons of mass destruction 

and other information that could be exploited to harm homeland security 

and public safety. This guidance addressed the protection of classified 

information, previously unclassified or declassified information, and 

sensitive but unclassified information.[Footnote 10] This guidance was 

issued along with a March 19, 2002, memorandum to the heads of all 

departments and agencies from the White House Chief of Staff.



Relationship of FOIA and the Privacy Act:



Although the laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the 

Privacy Act permit individuals to seek first-party access to records 

about themselves. Depending on the individual circumstances, one law 

may allow broader access or more extensive procedural rights than the 

other, or access may be denied under one act and allowed under the 

other. After a series of conflicting court decisions, Congress in 1984 

clarified the interrelationship between the Privacy Act and FOIA for 

all federal agencies. As a result, individuals may make first-party 

requests using the procedures in the Privacy Act, FOIA, or both. 

Subsequently, OIP issued guidance that it is “good policy for agencies 

to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA requests (as well as 

possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of whether the FOIA is cited 

in a requester’s letter.” This treatment may provide a possibly broader 

response to a first-party request. As a result, agencies include first-

party requests in their annual FOIA reports (e.g., the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) data include first-party requests for records of 

medical treatment).



No Clear Trends in Agency Processing Times, but Backlogs Are Growing:



We were unable to identify any clear trends in processing time needed 

to fulfill requests because agencies have made changes in how they 

report these data. These changes improved data quality but also reduced 

year-to-year comparability. For most agencies-except VA-the number of 

requests received and processed appears to have peaked in fiscal year 

2000 and declined slightly in fiscal year 2001. Governmentwide, 

however, agency backlogs of pending requests are substantial, and 

growing, indicating that agencies are falling behind in processing 

requests.



No Clear Trends in Processing Times:



The time required to process requests by track varies among agencies 

(see table 1). Agencies with single-track processing use a first-in/

first-out basis to process all requests. As figure 2 shows, the median 

processing times for agencies that used single-track processing are 

usually less than 50 days. Agencies with multitrack processing 

designate requests as simple requests, which require relatively minimal 

review, or complex requests, which are more voluminous and/or require 

more search and review. Agencies generally reported median processing 

times of about 20 days for requests processed in what they designated 

as their simple tracks; however, two agencies reported much longer 

times (see fig. 3). Median processing times for complex requests were 

reported to be much higher than for simple requests (see figs. 3 and 

4).



Table 1: Agency Processing Times, by Track:



 Agency: AID; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 10; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 70; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 45; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 31.



 Agency: CIA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 7; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 7; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 7; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 187; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 176; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 86; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: USDA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 11; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 26; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 30; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 20; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 45; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 49; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOC; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 16; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 14; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 14; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 30; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 30; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 54; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOD; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 20; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 25; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 23; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 66; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 69; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 84; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: ED; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 20; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 16; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 27; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 51; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOE; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 16; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 133; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 211; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 55; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 531; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 1,788; [Empty]; Single 

track: Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: HHS; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 10-35[A]; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 60-332[A]; [Empty]; Single 

track: Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 6-342[A].



 Agency: HUD; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 27-266[A]; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days 

to process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 67; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 53; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 43; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOI; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 19; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 18; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 13-157[A].



 Agency: DOJ; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 23; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 1-78[A]; Simple track: 

Median days to process: 2001: 1-137[A]; [Empty]; Complex track: Median 

days to process: 1999: 167; Complex track: Median days to process: 

2000: 12-2,097[A]; Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 16-

1,311[A]; [Empty]; Single track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Single track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Single track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOL; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 10; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 13; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 13; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 25; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 43; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 39; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: State; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 

48; Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 37; Simple track: 

Median days to process: 2001: 157; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days 

to process: 1999: 308; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 

694; Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 742; [Empty]; Single 

track: Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: DOT; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 16; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 14; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 8; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 45; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 39; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 23; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 6; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 15; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 30.



 Agency: Treasury; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 

11; Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 1-22[A]; Simple track: 

Median days to process: 2001: 2-20[A]; [Empty]; Complex track: Median 

days to process: 1999: 40; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 

5-1,000[A]; Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 9-232[A]; 

[Empty]; Single track: Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: 

Median days to process: 2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2001: -.



 Agency: VA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 12; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 25; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 13; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: EPA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 14; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 19; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 17-36[A]; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 25; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 31; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 24-333[A]; [Empty]; Single 

track: Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: FEMA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 52; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 35; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 50; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: GSA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 20; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 20; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 14.



 Agency: NASA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 15; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 24; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 19; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 29; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 38; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 45; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: NSF; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 12; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 14; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 13.



 Agency: NRC; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 17; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 19; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: 17; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 75; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 26; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 20; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: OPM; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 8; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 7; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: 17; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 17; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 11; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



 Agency: SBA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: -; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: -; Simple track: Median 

days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days to 

process: 1999: -; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: -; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: -; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: 8; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: 3; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: 2.



 Agency: SSA; [Empty]; Simple track: Median days to process: 1999: 16; 

Simple track: Median days to process: 2000: 11-45[A]; Simple track: 

Median days to process: 2001: 13; [Empty]; Complex track: Median days 

to process: 1999: 97; Complex track: Median days to process: 2000: 42; 

Complex track: Median days to process: 2001: 62; [Empty]; Single track: 

Median days to process: 1999: -; Single track: Median days to process: 

2000: -; Single track: Median days to process: 2001: -.



Note: A hyphen indicates that the agency did not report any median time 

for a given track in a given year.



[A] Some agencies that have decentralized FOIA processing reported 

processing times by component. Table indicates the range of reported 

component median processing times. :



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of table]



Figure 2: Median Days for Single-Track Processing:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 3: Median Days for Simple Processing:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 4: Median Days for Complex Processing:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Agencies process FOIA requests on an expedited basis when a requester 

has shown a compelling need or urgency. Agencies reported a wide range 

of median processing times for expedited requests (see table 2).



Table 2: Processing Times for Expedited Requests:



Agency: AID; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: CIA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: USDA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 7; Median days to 

process: 2000: 12; Median days to process: 2001: 33.



Agency: DOC; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 3; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: 8.



Agency: DOD; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 7; Median days to 

process: 2000: 3; Median days to process: 2001: 3.



Agency: ED; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 15; Median days to 

process: 2000: 12; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: DOE; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 4; Median days to 

process: 2000: 10; Median days to process: 2001: 10.



Agency: HHS; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 35; Median days to 

process: 2000: 5-135[A]; Median days to process: 2001: 1-111[A].



Agency: HUD; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: 5-18[A].



Agency: DOI; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 7; Median days to 

process: 2000: 12; Median days to process: 2001: 1-10[A].



Agency: DOJ; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 38; Median days to 

process: 2000: 1-106[A]; Median days to process: 2001: 1-107[A].



Agency: DOL; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 5; Median days to 

process: 2000: 6; Median days to process: 2001: 6.



Agency: State; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 168; Median days 

to process: 2000: 518; Median days to process: 2001: 252.



Agency: DOT; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 6; Median days to 

process: 2000: 1; Median days to process: 2001: 8.



Agency: Treasury; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 15; Median 

days to process: 2000: 8; Median days to process: 2001: 3.



Agency: VA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 2; Median days to 

process: 2000: 2; Median days to process: 2001: 3.



Agency: EPA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 14; Median days to 

process: 2000: 44; Median days to process: 2001: 8-105[A].



Agency: FEMA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: GSA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: NASA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 20; Median days to 

process: 2000: 3; Median days to process: 2001: 10.



Agency: NSF; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Agency: NRC; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: 16; Median days to process: 2001: 105.



Agency: OPM; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: 8; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: 1.



Agency: SBA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: 1.



Agency: SSA; [Empty]; Median days to process: 1999: -; Median days to 

process: 2000: -; Median days to process: 2001: -.



Note: A hyphen indicates that the agency did not report any median time 

for a given track in a given year.



[A] Some agencies that have decentralized FOIA processing reported 

processing times by component. Table indicates the range of reported 

component median processing times.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of table]



We were unable to identify any clear trends in request-processing times 

because of year-to-year changes in agency reporting. Specifically, as 

shown in table 1, agencies changed in terms of whether they reported at 

the individual component level or agencywide, and also changed the 

tracks in which they process requests.



Annual reports for agencies with decentralized FOIA operations are 

changing, in terms of how workload data (request processing and 

backlogs) are reported: component-based reporting, agencywide 

reporting, or both. These changes are a result of August 2001 guidance 

from OIP, which stated that agencies that handle FOIA requests in a 

decentralized manner should report their data at the component level, 

rather than only in aggregated form. The number of annual reports that 

include FOIA data by component has increased from fiscal years 2000 to 

2001 (see fig. 30 in app. III).



As a result, several agencies with decentralized operations do not have 

comparable median processing times for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. 

For example:



* For fiscal year 2001, five annual reports switched from aggregated, 

agencywide data to reporting disaggregated data by component. Two of 

the annual reports from agencies with component-based reporting in 

fiscal year 2001 (VA and the Department of the Treasury) also showed 

aggregated agencywide data. In fiscal year 2001, six annual reports do 

not give a clear indication of agencywide progress in timeliness, 

compared with previous years.



* The Department of Defense (DOD) annual report switched from 

aggregated reporting for fiscal year 1998, to both aggregated and 

component based reporting for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, 

and back to aggregated reporting for fiscal year 2001.



This change in reporting will be helpful in the long run, however, 

because it gives an overall look at an agency’s FOIA operations as well 

as an in-depth look at its components’ FOIA operations.



During fiscal years 1999 through 2001, a few agencies also changed how 

they process and report requests according to tracks. For example, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development reported its processing 

times for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 on a single track. For fiscal year 

2001, it switched to multitrack processing and began reporting median 

times for both simple and complex requests.



Volume of Requests Leveling Off, Except for VA:



In fiscal year 2001, the agencies whose annual data we reviewed 

reported receiving and processing a total of about 2 million FOIA 

requests, at an aggregate cost of over $270 million.[Footnote 11] Taken 

together, the agencies reported receiving and processing more FOIA 

requests each succeeding year from fiscal years 1999 through 2001 (see 

fig. 5). However, the VA’s huge and growing volume of requests--

according to VA officials, these are mostly first-party requests that 

are processed and recorded as both Privacy Act and FOIA requests--masks 

the general picture for the rest of the agencies.[Footnote 12] 

Excluding VA, the total number of requests received by the other 

agencies appears to have peaked in fiscal year 2000 and declined 

slightly in fiscal year 2001 (see fig. 6).



Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests for 25 Agencies:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 6: Total FOIA Requests (Without VA):



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 23 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Six agencies-VA, the Social Security Administration (SSA), Justice, the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOD, and the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS)-consistently reported receiving the most FOIA 

requests (see fig. 7). VA received the largest number of requests for 

fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.[Footnote 13] The rank order 

among the other agencies in the top six shifts somewhat from year to 

year, depending on requesters’ interests. For example:



* The number of requests received by SSA increased dramatically between 

fiscal years 1998 and 2000, moving SSA up in rank order. The SSA 

officials we interviewed attributed this to the growing popularity of 

genealogy and requests by researchers for SSA records; this trend 

appears to have continued in fiscal year 2001.



* USDA had a relative increase in fiscal year 2000 that agency 

officials attributed to inquiries regarding settlement of a major legal 

case, but the fiscal year 2001 numbers are more in line with fiscal 

year 1999.



Figure 7: Total FOIA Requests Received, by Agencies:



[See PDF for image]



Note: In this figure, many agencies appear to receive no requests. This 

is not true. The appearance is due to the figure’s scale, made 

necessary to portray accurately the large number of requests received 

by VA.



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Growing Backlogs of Pending Cases:



For the 24 agencies (not including VA), the total number of requests 

pending at the end of the fiscal year continued to increase (see fig. 

8), even though the total number of FOIA requests they received 

declined from fiscal years 2000 to 2001. The backlog is generally 

increasing for about half of the agencies (see fig. 9).



Figure 8: Total Pending Requests for 25 Agencies, 24 Agencies (Without 

VA), and VA Only:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 9: Pending Requests at End of Year for 25 Agencies:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



About two-thirds of the agencies have a backlog ratio of about 20 

percent or less (see fig. 10). This means that the backlog is, on 

average, equivalent to the number of requests the agency received in a 

period of about 10 weeks. Backlog ratio is defined as the number of 

pending FOIA requests in agency backlogs at the end of a fiscal year, 

compared with the numbers of requests received in that fiscal year. 

Some agencies, such as VA and USDA, that have large volumes of requests 

may also have large numbers of pending cases that correspond to 

relatively small backlog ratios. For example, for fiscal years 1999 

through 2001, their backlogs were equivalent to less than 5 percent of 

the requests they received for the year. However, agencies can also 

have relatively large backlog ratios-for example, in fiscal year 2001, 

four agencies have ratios greater than 50 percent, and one of these 

agencies has a backlog ratio greater than 100 percent. This means that 

the agency over 100 percent has more pending requests than the number 

of requests received in a year.



Figure 10: Pending Requests Divided by Received Requests:



[See PDF for image]



Note: The backlog ratio is defined as the number of requests pending 

divided by the number of requests received that year. Agencies with a 

value over 100% have more backlog than requests received per year.



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Many agencies are processing fewer requests than they receive each 

year. About a third of the 25 agencies had agency processing rates 

below 100 percent in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, 

indicating that they processed fewer requests than they received each 

year (see fig. 11). The agency processing rate is defined as the ratio 

of requests processed in a fiscal year to the number received, and 

requests processed can include pending requests from previous years. 

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was the only agency with a 

processing rate over 100 percent in each year for fiscal years 1998, 

1999, 2000, and 2001. This means that CIA has made steady progress in 

reducing its backlog of pending cases (see fig. 9). Seventeen other 

agencies were able to make at least a small reduction in their backlogs 

in 1 or more years between fiscal years 1998 and 2001.



Figure 11: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies:



[See PDF for image]



Note: The agency processing rate is defined as the percentage of 

requests an agency processes out of the requests an agency received. An 

agency processing rate of under 100% is directly related to an 

increasing number of pending cases.



[A] Year 2001 includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department of 

Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as of 

July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



A few agencies have backlogs with median ages of 1 year or more (see 

fig. 12). Fourteen of the 25 agencies had backlogs with median ages of 

fewer than 100 days in at least 2 years between fiscal years 1999 and 

2001; the remaining agencies had backlog ages of over 100 days (see 

fig. 13).



Figure 12: Median Age of Backlog:



[See PDF for image]



Note: In this figure, many agencies appear to have a median age of 

backlog that is zero. This is not true. Agencies that report by 

component and do not provide an agencywide median age do not appear on 

this figure.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 13: Agencies with Pending Median Days Below 100:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



The FOIA officials we interviewed cited several reasons for their 

growing backlogs. These reasons included the increasing complexity of 

the requests, a lack of staff resources for FOIA processing, and a lack 

of agency information technology support. Several agencies also noted 

these factors in their annual reports.



Progress in On-Line Availability Is Continuing, but Additional Agency 

Attention Is Needed:



Agencies have made progress in on-line availability of the materials 

required by e-FOIA as well as in using the Web to make materials 

publicly available and in incorporating Web site features that 

facilitate public access to government information. However, not all 

required materials were available on line. In addition, materials were 

not always easy to find, Web site links to information were not always 

functioning properly, and some materials that were previously available 

were no longer on line. This situation appears to reflect a lack of 

adequate attention and continuing review by agency officials to ensure 

that these materials are available.



Continuing Progress in On-Line Availability:



Agencies continue to make progress in making materials available on 

line. As shown in figure 14, 18 agencies had all six of the required 

elements on line during our 2002 Web site review period, compared with 

15 agencies during our 2000 review. However, in 2002, seven agency Web 

sites did not have all of the required elements. During both reviews, 

all 25 agencies had links to annual reports for recent years.[Footnote 

14] This year, all 25 agencies had policy statements available on line.



Figure 14: On-Line Availability of Elements as Required by e-FOIA:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Material was not found during our review of agencies’ Web sites. 

Link was provided during the agency Web site verification process.



[B] Link was not working during our review of agencies’ Web sites but 

was subsequently restored.



[D] Material was referred to by the agency but was not available.



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



Agencies are also making progress in using the Web to make materials 

publicly available. As shown in figure 15, 10 agencies had all eight of 

these elements on their Web sites this year, compared with 9 agencies 

in 2000. Also, as shown in figure 15, this year the number of agencies 

using the Web to meet public availability requirements increased for 

four of the eight elements, and all 25 agencies had two of the elements 

(fee schedule and description of record locator system) on their Web 

sites. Our current review shows that 10 more agencies have an index to 

major information systems on their Web sites than in our 2000 review.



Figure 15: Use of the Web to Make Reference Material and FOIA 

Regulations Publicly Available:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Material was not found during our review of agencies’ Web sites. 

Link was provided during the agency Web site verification process.



[B] Link was not working during our review of agencies’ Web sites but 

was subsequently restored.



[C] Link was not working during our review of agencies’ Web sites but 

was subsequently restored in response to our assessment.



[E] Data were not comparable to 2000 review.



[F] Indicates that a description of the agency’s record locator system 

(i.e., GILS) was found on the agency’s Web site.



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



Agencies are making more use of Web features that facilitate public 

access to information into their Web sites. As shown in figure 16, 9 

agencies had all seven of these features on their Web sites this year, 

compared with 4 agencies in 2000. All 25 agencies had at least four of 

the seven features on their Web sites during our current review. Also 

as shown in figure 16, we found that six of the seven features were on 

more agency Web sites this year than in 2000. The feature showing the 

most increase, compared with our 2000 review, was the link to FOIA 

offices, with 6 more agencies having this on their Web sites.



Figure 16: Features that Facilitate Public Access:



[See PDF for image]



[B] Link was not working during our review of agencies’ Web sites but 

was subsequently restored.



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]





Additional Attention to Ease of Use and Continued Availability Needed:



The Web sites varied in terms of how easy or difficult it was to find 

the required elements as well as the elements that agencies made 

publicly available on line. Specifically, we were unable to find some 

of the elements within the 30-minute time period we allowed for 

searching each agency Web site. We were unable to find up to two of the 

required elements on five agency Web sites; these are indicated by a 

notation in figure 14 (note a). Also, as indicated by a notation in 

figure 15 (note a), we did not find up to two of the “publicly 

available” elements on four agency Web sites. Web site links for these 

elements were subsequently provided by the agencies during their 

comment period.



During our current Web site review, four agency sites had links to 

elements that the agency had intended to make available on line but 

that were not functioning properly (broken). These 11 broken links are 

indicated by a notation (note b) in figures 14 through 16. 

Specifically:



* One agency indicated that four of its Web site links to required 

elements, which were broken during our review, had subsequently been 

repaired.[Footnote 15]



* Three agencies indicated that broken links to publicly available 

elements that were not working during our review had subsequently been 

repaired.



* One agency Web site had one broken link to information on obtaining 

public services, which was subsequently repaired.



Three agencies restored their broken links in response to our 

assessment; these are indicated by a notation in figure 15 (note c).



Certain agencies no longer had material that had been available during 

the 2000 review posted on their Web sites this year. Specifically:



* Four agencies had up to two of the required elements available on 

their Web sites during our 2000 review but no longer had them 

available.



* Eight agencies had one or two publicly available elements on their 

Web sites during our 2000 review but no longer had them available.



* One agency did have a FOIA link on the agency home page in 2000, but 

not this year.



Agencies are not devoting sufficient attention to the on-line 

availability of materials and ensuring that Web site content is 

adequately maintained, including accuracy and currency of the material 

and Web site links. A few of the agency officials we spoke with during 

our review said that some elements were not available on line because 

the agencies have had difficulty in regularly updating their sites. 

FOIA officials from several of the agencies said that difficulties in 

obtaining Webmaster and other technical support, restrictions on server 

space, and insufficient FOIA staff are factors that make it difficult 

to post additional material on their Web sites.



Views of FOIA Officials and FOIA Requesters Differ Regarding Impact of 

the Post-September 11 Environment:



The FOIA officials and requesters viewed the impacts of the post-

September 11 environment on e-FOIA implementation differently. Except 

for mail delays resulting from the anthrax attacks, the agency 

officials characterized the effects of the September 11 terrorist 

attacks on operations as relatively minor. These officials focused on 

specific changes in operations and compliance, rather than on general 

changes in their agencies’ proactive information dissemination policies 

and practices. In contrast, requesters expressed considerably more 

concern, especially in a broader sense, about public access to 

government information.[Footnote 16] Requesters did not differentiate 

between specific concerns about FOIA compliance and their more general 

concerns about government information dissemination and public access.



The impacts of the post-September 11 environment and current policy 

climate are ongoing. Some of the impacts on how agencies respond to 

FOIA requests, disseminate information to the public, and provide 

electronic access to information will only surface in the future. It is 

not yet clear how current and prospective requesters will respond to 

changes in the policy environment and to changes in agency practices. 

According to the requesters we met with, some portion of the long-term 

impact may be masked by as-yet-unknown (or never-known) changes in the 

mix of FOIA requests and by any perceived “chilling effect” on 

requesters that results in some potential requests not being made.



FOIA Officials Reported Relatively Minor Changes to FOIA Operations:



In six of eight agencies, the FOIA officials reported substantial 

delays in receiving mailed requests, resulting from the anthrax 

situation. These agencies had large portions of their requester mail 

processed through affected facilities. The two remaining agencies did 

not report major delays; for example, SSA’s mail does not go through 

the affected U.S. Postal Service facilities.



The officials reported that they had not made major changes to their 

FOIA processes or decision criteria since the period covered by our 

prior report, including in response to September 11 and anthrax. They 

also did not report significant impacts on the FOIA-related content on 

their agencies’ Web sites. The changes the officials described include 

the following examples:



* Following the October 12, 2001, Attorney General guidance on FOIA, 

SSA no longer requires a memorandum on “harm” as rationale for not 

making a discretionary disclosure. DOD issued a new guidance memorandum 

covering the new Attorney General guidance and use of exemptions; the 

agency memorandum noted that discretionary disclosures were no longer 

encouraged.



* One agency component (USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service) reported that it had removed a frequently requested record 

from its Web site because of industry concern over the safety of animal 

researchers and research facilities that were identified in the 

document. Other agencies’ FOIA officers reported redacting or modifying 

frequently requested records (e.g., lists of government purchase card 

holders) to avoid disclosing employees’ names and/or locations.



* HHS reported receiving new security classification authority that 

would allow the agency to withhold classified information if it were 

requested under FOIA.



A few of the agencies’ FOIA officers were aware of general agency 

reviews of Web site content as part of an overall review of information 

dissemination (not specific to the agencies’ FOIA-related Web site 

content or designated “electronic reading rooms”). Several of the 

officials reported that documents in general are being more closely 

scrutinized for sensitivity and in a few cases are not being posted on 

line because of security concerns (e.g., building blueprints).



FOIA Requesters Were Concerned with Public Access to Government 

Information:



The eight FOIA requesters we contacted focused on what they perceived 

as a changing policy climate, which some of them characterized as a 

shift from a “right to know” standard (i.e., FOIA) to a “need to know” 

standard (i.e., discretionary agency information dissemination). The 

requesters reported expecting more delays in the process, more use of 

exemptions, and fewer discretionary disclosures. These requesters also 

were concerned about changes in access to government information on 

line as a result of agency actions that they knew about-for example, 

certain public interest groups continue to compile and publish lists of 

content that was removed (“scrubbed”) from government Web sites after 

September 11. However, they did not make clear distinctions-or know-

whether the government Web site scrubbing they knew about included 

materials that e-FOIA requires to be made available on line, as opposed 

to other agency information products and publications.



The six requesters we met with, who advocate open public access to 

government information, expressed strong concerns regarding what they 

perceived as changes in the policy climate surrounding FOIA. One focus 

of their concern was how the March 2002 guidance from OIP and the 

Information Security Oversight Office on protecting “sensitive but 

unclassified” information would affect release of information in 

response to requests.[Footnote 17] Another focus of their concern was 

the potential for the new policy guidance to discourage some potential 

requesters (e.g., reporters) from trying to use FOIA. They 

characterized this as a potential “chilling effect” on requesters and 

anticipated that some requesters would therefore turn to other means 

(e.g., use “leakers” or “whistleblowers”) to get information about 

government activities. The requesters we contacted noted that the net 

effects of the post-September 11 environment on e-FOIA implementation 

would be hard to quantify or measure and that some effects would not be 

visible until specific FOIA cases are appealed and litigated.



Justice Is Continuing Actions to Implement Our Recommendations:



Justice’s OIP has acted to implement our recommendations, and agencies 

gave us positive feedback about these efforts. As a result, agencies 

have made progress in improving data quality in their annual reports 

and in making materials available on line. However, numerous data 

anomalies remain. In addition, agencies have not maintained sufficient 

attention to their Web sites to ensure that materials are easy to 

locate, that links to information are functioning properly, and that 

access to FOIA-related materials is continued over time. Justice 

recognizes that agencies need to make further improvements in the 

quality of their reporting and on-line availability. As a result, 

Justice is continuing its efforts to encourage agencies to make these 

improvements.



Justice Has Taken Action on Our Recommendations:



To improve the public’s access to government records and information, 

our March 2001 report[Footnote 18] included recommendations that the 

Attorney General direct Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy 

(OIP) to:



* improve the reliability of agencies’ data in their FOIA annual 

reports by providing guidance that addresses data quality issues and by 

reviewing agencies’ annual report data for completeness and consistency 

and:



* encourage agencies to make all required materials available 

electronically.



To address the recommendations in our March 2001 report, OIP augmented 

its FOIA training programs-including the basic and advanced courses it 

offers to attorneys and FOIA coordinators-to include subjects raised by 

the recommendations. OIP also has taken additional, specific actions to 

address each of our recommendations.



FOIA officials gave us positive feedback about the quality of OIP’s 

training courses and their FOIA guidance. Most agency officials that we 

interviewed stated that they would want OIP to offer greater training 

capacity (i.e., more seats) for its courses, as well as training in 

more convenient locations.



Justice Continues to Encourage Agencies to Improve Data Quality:



In August 2001, OIP issued supplemental guidance, via FOIA Post, on how 

to prepare annual agency FOIA reports. This guidance, among other 

things, reinforced that all agencies should use the standardized annual 

report template for uniform agency reporting and outlined several 

methods that agencies should use to confirm the accuracy of their data. 

The Justice guidance was straightforward about how agencies should 

calculate and/or total their data to ensure accuracy.



For fiscal year 2001, fewer agency FOIA reports had data quality and 

consistency problems, compared with fiscal year 2000. Nevertheless, 

some of the fiscal year 2001 reports did have anomalies, with no 

explanations provided. For example:



* OIP’s annual report guidance states that the total of the categories, 

“total grants,” “partial grants,” “denials,” and “other reasons for 

nondisclosure” should equal the total number of processed requests. But 

when we reviewed fiscal year 2001 data for the 25 agencies, we found 

that three agency annual reports included totals by disposition that 

did not equal the number of total requests processed. For the fiscal 

year 2000 annual reports, 14 of the 25 annual reports had inconsistent 

totals.



* OIP’s guidance is also clear that the total number of agency full-

time-equivalent (FTE) staff reported should equal the sum of FTEs for 

full-time FOIA staff plus the total FTEs for staff working part time on 

FOIA. In fiscal year 2000, FTEs reported in four annual reports did not 

total accordingly. In fiscal year 2001, only one annual report’s FTE 

total was anomalous.



* One annual report’s FOIA staffing level was much higher for fiscal 

year 1999 than for subsequent years. This anomaly prompted us to 

contact the agency, which provided us with a corrected value for total 

fiscal year 1999 FTEs that was smaller by a factor of six. Another 

agency annual report showed a fiscal year 2001 FTE figure that was only 

about one-third of the prior-year levels. When contacted, this agency 

indicated that the fiscal year 2001 figure was correct and that the 

anomaly was due to FTE data that was inaccurately reported in the 

previous years. However, a third agency’s annual report showed a much 

higher total FTE figure for fiscal year 2000 than for fiscal years 1999 

and 2001. We contacted the agency, which told us that the fiscal year 

2000 figure reflected an increase in requests associated with an 

ongoing legal settlement; thus, the data had been reported correctly.



* OIP’s guidance states that the total number of requests reported by 

track in the “Median Processing Time” segment of the annual report 

should equal the number of requests processed that year. For fiscal 

year 2001, we found that five agency annual reports included a number 

for total number of requests processed by track that was different from 

the total number of requests reported processed in the “Initial FOIA/PA 

Access Requests” section of the report. One of the annual reports 

showed a substantial difference in these figures. Six agencies’ annual 

reports had this type of anomaly for fiscal year 2000.



OIP reported that it had implemented a process, beginning in the fall 

of 2000, to review all agency annual reports as they are submitted for 

posting on OIP’s Web page. OIP’s report review continued, taking our 

2001 report into account, for the fiscal year 2001 reports. OIP told us 

that its staff generally discusses issues or discrepancies it 

identifies with individual agencies. FOIA officials in four of the 

eight agencies we interviewed indicated they had received such calls 

and did address OIP’s questions or concerns about data quality; the 

rest said that they were not contacted by OIP regarding data quality. A 

couple of agencies that were contacted by OIP told us that the data 

quality issues raised by OIP were different than those that we found in 

our analysis. Justice officials indicated that they would continue to 

review agency reports and provide agencies with feedback on data 

quality.



Justice Is Continuing to Encourage Agencies to Improve On-Line 

Availability:



Immediately following issuance of our March 2001 report, OIP issued 

supplementary guidance to all federal agencies on making the elements 

required by e-FOIA electronically available. This guidance reminded 

agencies that “careful vigilance” in setting up and maintaining on-line 

availability of materials is needed. In the fall of 1996, following 

enactment of e-FOIA, OIP guidance advised agencies to have Internet or 

Web sites to meet on-line access requirements. OIP issued 

recommendations on Web site development to agencies in 1997 and 1998; 

OIP also spotlighted model agency Web practices during that period. The 

1997-98 Web site guidance noted the need for periodic review of FOIA-

related Web pages to ensure ease of use and maintain accurate content 

and functional Web site links. In 1999, the Attorney General reinforced 

the importance of agency FOIA officers and information resources 

management personnel working together to implement e-FOIA efficiently. 

OIP emphasized this by disseminating the Attorney General’s memorandum 

through its FOIA Update publication.



Agencies progressed in making elements available on line, but further 

improvements are needed. About a quarter of the agencies whose Web 

sites we reviewed did not have all the materials required by e-FOIA 

electronically available. Some elements that were on the Web sites were 

hard to find (see items indicated by a notation in figs. 14 and 15 

(note a)). Continued availability of elements remains an issue--most 

agency Web sites have been updated, revised, and/or redesigned since 

our 2000 review. Four agency sites had broken links to information and 

some agency Web sites included certain elements in 2000 that were 

missing in 2002. These problems indicate a lack of agency attention and 

review, especially in the face of general agency Web site changes and 

modifications.



Justice recognizes the need for additional agency attention to e-FOIA 

Web sites. OIP officials told us that Justice is continuing, through 

training and on-line publications, to reinforce the need for full e-

FOIA compliance by agencies and facilitate sharing of best practices 

among agencies. These activities include OIP’s Advanced FOIA Seminar 

and FOIA Administrative Forum, which are each offered twice yearly, and 

include topics related to implementation of OIP’s Web site guidance and 

agency best practices. OIP also spotlights agency success stories and 

best practices in “Web Site Watch.” This feature was included in OIP’s 

former publication, FOIA Update, and OIP officials told us that it 

would be featured again in forthcoming issues of its FOIA Post Web 

site.



Conclusions:



Although we were unable to identify any clear trends in the timeliness 

of processing FOIA requests, the reporting changes that Justice has 

encouraged agencies to make are improving the quality and usefulness of 

the annual reports. These changes should, over time, allow Congress and 

the public better information about timeliness, which has been a long-

standing issue. However, the growing backlog of pending requests is a 

concern.



On-line availability of FOIA materials continues to improve. However, 

agencies are not yet adequately ensuring that these materials are 

properly maintained as agency Web sites change over time. These 

materials contribute to public understanding of agency FOIA procedures, 

the types of records and information an agency produces, and how to 

formulate requests. Without continuous agency attention to on-line 

availability, such public understanding may be impeded.



Regarding the events of September 11, FOIA officials and requesters 

view the impacts very differently. Nevertheless, the full impact of the 

post-September 11 environment will not be known for some time--until 

data become available, trends are analyzed, and denials are litigated 

and decided. Understanding this impact will be important as the 

government continues to oversee and refine its information access and 

dissemination policies and guidance.



Justice’s efforts to implement our previous recommendations have 

resulted in improvements to both the quality of agencies’ annual 

reports and on-line availability of information. However, data 

anomalies remain and not all required information is easily and 

continuously available. Justice recognizes that agencies need to make 

further improvements in these areas. Its plans to continue review of 

annual reports for data quality and encourage on-line availability of 

FOIA materials appear reasonable and should help agencies make the 

needed improvements. In view of these continuing actions, we believe no 

further recommendations are warranted at this time.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Acting 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration or his designee. On 

August 2, 2002, a codirector of the Department of Justice’s OIP 

provided us with oral comments on the draft, stating that the 

department generally agreed with the report’s findings and conclusions. 

The OIP official also made a number of technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.



As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 

from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 

Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, House Committee 

on Government Reform. In addition, we will provide copies to the 

Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General. We 

will make copies available to others upon request. This report is also 

available without charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.



If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by E-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Key 

contributors to this report were Joanne Fiorino, Michael P. Fruitman, 

Laurence Gill, Katherine Howe, Min S. Lee, Glenn R. Nichols, David 

Plocher, and Joan D. Winston.



[See PDF for image]



Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues:



Signed by Linda D. Koontz:



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Together, the 25 agencies included in our analysis of annual reports 

and Web site content handle over 97 percent of the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requests governmentwide. To the extent possible, 

we replicated the assessment methodologies used for our March 2001 

report.[Footnote 19]



To gauge agencies’ progress in processing requests, we analyzed the 

workload data (through fiscal year 2001) included in the 25 agencies’ 

annual FOIA reports to assess trends in the volume of requests 

processed, median processing times, and backlogs of pending cases. All 

agency workload data were self-reported in the annual reports submitted 

to the Attorney General; we did not verify these data. We also analyzed 

FOIA processes and experiences in implementing the 1996 Electronic 

Freedom of Information Act (e-FOIA) Amendments in the eight major 

agencies we focused on in our previous report since the period covered 

by that report. To obtain this update, we used an interview guide and a 

standard set of questions to interview FOIA officers in eight agencies: 

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Department of Justice, Department of State, Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA). 

These include the six agencies reporting the largest number of requests 

during the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, plus two agencies 

identified as having long-standing problems with backlogged requests. 

We also used interview guides to interview officials in Justice’s 

Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) and the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for an 

update on FOIA coordination, guidance, training, and support.



To assess the extent to which elements that e-FOIA requires to be 

available on line were available on the 25 agency Web sites during May 

through June, 2002, we reviewed their department-level Internet and 

FOIA-related Web site content. We compared the results of our 2002 Web 

site review with a similar review that we conducted in summer 2000 and 

reported on in March 2001.



Our Web site review looked for a total of 21 target elements. Six of 

these are elements that e-FOIA requires agencies to make available on 

line. Eight are elements that the law requires agencies to make 

publicly available (although not necessarily on line); we included them 

in our review to assess the extent to which agencies are using the Web 

to make them publicly available. The remaining 7 elements, which OIP 

and OMB guidance also encourage agencies to incorporate, are features 

that facilitate public access to government information via their Web 

sites. We also assessed the presence of these features as part of our 

Web site review.



The results of our Web site review indicate whether material 

corresponding to an element was available on the agency Web site. We 

did not evaluate the merits or adequacy of this material. For each of 

the 21 target elements, we determined whether the material was:



* available-that is, we found material corresponding to the element;



* partially available-that is, we found a portion of material 

corresponding to the element;



* not found-that is, we did not find material corresponding to the 

element; or:



* not applicable-that is, for the particular agency.



During our spring 2002 Web site assessment, we attempted to locate the 

target elements by starting from the department-level home page and/or 

the FOIA-related sections of the Web site. If an item could not readily 

be found via these pages, we attempted to locate the item in other 

sections of the Web site, starting from the main home page or other 

associated Web pages (e.g., reviewing an agency’s Office of General 

Counsel section to look for agency final opinions). Our review had a 

time limit of 30 minutes per Web site. During June 2002, the 25 

agencies each had an opportunity to verify and comment on a draft 

assessment of their Web sites.



Our agency interviews included questions on the impact of the post-

September 11 environment. To explore requesters’ perspectives on this 

subject, we conducted literature reviews and contacted selected members 

of the FOIA requester community. The eight members of the requester 

community we contacted, most of whom had also been identified during 

our previous study, are widely recognized for their expertise and 

involvement in FOIA issues and advocate public access to government 

information. According to the requesters, many of them make relatively 

complex requests involving significant agency search and review, 

frequently of large amounts of material. We invited these requesters to 

share their perspectives on a standard set of topics: annual agency 

FOIA reports, measures of “timeliness” in FOIA responses, experiences 

with different agency approaches to e-FOIA, usefulness of the FOIA 

elements on agencies’ Web sites, pre-and post-September 11 concerns 

regarding e-FOIA implementation, and their “top 2” concerns regarding 

e-FOIA implementation and/or FOIA overall. The information we obtained 

was anecdotal, and we did not verify the data. Requester community 

members from the following organizations met with us and/or provided 

written information:



* Federation of American Scientists (written comments, Apr. 8, 2002);



* Access Reports, American Library Association, Cohn & Marks 

(representing American Society of Newspaper Editors), OMB Watch, and 

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (group meeting, Apr. 9, 

2002);



* Electronic Privacy Information Center (interview, Apr. 18, 2002); 

and:



* National Security Archive (written comments, May 13, 2002).



To determine what actions Justice has taken on the recommendations in 

our March 2001 report, we interviewed OIP officials and analyzed new 

guidance and other documentation issued by that office to assist in 

agency e-FOIA implementation. We explored the efficacy of Justice’s 

actions through our interviews with the eight major agencies and OIP 

and through our analysis of the 25 agencies’ annual FOIA reports and 

our Web site review. We also interviewed officials at OMB.



Our work was performed from January through June, 2002, in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Overview of Agency FOIA Processing:



The process begins when an agency receives a written FOIA request from 

a requester, who could be any member of the public or an organization. 

From that point, the request goes through several phases, which 

include: processing the request letter, searching for and retrieving 

records, preparing records for release, approving the release of 

records, and releasing the records to the requester. A request being 

processed is often referred to as a “case.” Agencies may deny access to 

requested material (e.g., by withholding records or redacting 

information) that falls within the statutory exemption categories shown 

in table 3.



Table 3: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions:



Exemption number: (1); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: (A) 

Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive 

order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign 

policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such 

Executive order.



Exemption number: (2); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Related 

solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.



Exemption number: (3); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Specifically 

exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this 

title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be 

withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on 

the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or 

refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.



Exemption number: (4); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 

privileged or confidential.



Exemption number: (5); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Inter-agency 

or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by 

law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.



Exemption number: (6); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Personnel and 

medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.



Exemption number: (7); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or 

information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the 

extent that the production of such law enforcement records or 

information.



(A); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Could 

reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.



(B); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Would deprive a person of a 
right 

to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication.



(C); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Could reasonably be expected to

constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.



(D); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Could reasonably be expected to

disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, 
local, 

or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which 
furnished 

information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or 

information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the 

course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful 

national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by 

a confidential source.



(E); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Would disclose techniques and 

procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would 

disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 

if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention

of the law.



(F); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Could reasonably be expected to 

endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.



Exemption number: (8); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Contained in 

or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, 

on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the 

regulation or supervision of financial institutions.



Exemption number: (9); Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Geological 

and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.



Source: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) through (b)(9).



[End of table]



Some FOIA requests are relatively simple to process, for example, 

requests for specific pieces of information that the requester sends 

directly to the appropriate agency office, with no redaction required 

and minimal fees. Other requests require more extensive processing, 

depending on the complexity of the request, the volume of information 

involved, the need to route the request to the appropriate offices, the 

need for a FOIA officer to work with program offices to find and obtain 

information, the need for a FOIA officer to review and redact 

information in the responsive material, the need to communicate with 

the requester about the scope of the request, and the need to 

communicate with the requester about the fees that will be charged for 

fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be waived). FOIA 

processing, especially review of classified, sensitive, or privacy-

related material, is labor-intensive.



Agency FOIA offices also face several internal challenges to processing 

FOIA requests rapidly. The FOIA officers we interviewed reported a 

number of processing challenges, including a lack of information 

technology support from the agency, insufficient staff, inefficient 

record keeping that hinders information retrieval, and unresponsive 

program offices (resulting from a lack of available staff time or a 

lack of knowledge about FOIA).



Agency processes for handling FOIA requests vary widely. While some 

agencies have centralized FOIA processing in one main office, other 

agencies have decentralized their FOIA processing and have separate 

FOIA offices for each agency component and field office. Agencies also 

vary in how they allow requesters to make FOIA requests. Depending on 

the agency, requesters can submit requests by telephone, fax, letter, 

E-mail, and/or the Web. Finally, not all FOIA offices respond to 

requesters in the same way. A few of the agency FOIA officers we 

interviewed told us that their agencies do not routinely provide the 

statutory 20-day determination notification to requesters, because that 

extra step takes time away from the actual processing of the request 

and/or because they expect to fulfill the request in close to 20 days. 

Other officials told us that they notify requesters that their requests 

have been received and are being processed.



FOIA officers in six of the eight agencies told us that for internal 

management purposes, they do not usually evaluate their agencies’ 

progress using e-FOIA’s reporting metric--the median processing time. 

Instead, those agencies use other measures, such as the number of 

requests they have pending or the number of requests that have been 

pending over a set number of days (e.g., cases over 30 days, 60 days, 

or 90 days). Agency FOIA officers said that the only time they 

calculate the median processing time is when they are preparing their 

annual reports.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Further Details Regarding Agency Workload Analysis:



Agency annual FOIA reports also include data on the disposition of 

processed requests, the use of exemptions to justify withholding 

information, the outcome of administrative appeals, the fees collected 

from requesters, the costs the agency attributes to FOIA processing, 

and the number of full-time equivalents (FTE) devoted to FOIA 

processing. Annual reports from agencies with decentralized operations 

increasingly include component-level reporting.



Disposition of Requests:



Most of the 25 agencies’ FOIA requests resulted in agency responses 

that were full or partial grants of the requested information (see 

figs. 17 and 18). Figure 19 shows full grants as a percentage of total 

dispositions for the 25 agencies, where total dispositions include full 

grants, partial grants, denials, and other nondisclosures (e.g., 

because of withdrawn requests, no records found, fee-related reasons, 

etc.) Three agencies have full-grant ratios of over 90 percent. Only 4 

have total grant ratios under 40 percent for all years. Figures 20, 21, 

and 22 show partial grants, denials, and nondisclosures for other 

reasons as a percentage of total dispositions for the 25 agencies. We 

did not verify the data provided in the agencies’ annual FOIA reports.



Figure 17: Disposition of Initial Requests:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 18: Disposition of Initial Requests (Without VA):



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 19: Total Grants as a Percentage of Total Dispoition:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 20: Partial Grants as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 21: Denials as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 22: Nondisclosures as a Percentage of Total Disposition:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Use of Exemptions:



The exemptions most commonly reported by the 25 agencies were the 

privacy-related exemptions: exemption 6 and exemption 7(C). Figure 23 

aggregates the reported exemptions used to justify denials or partial 

grants of requested information (see table 3 in app. II).



Figure 23: Exemptions Used by 25 Agencies:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Administrative Appeals:



FOIA requesters can file administrative appeals with the agencies. 

Figure 24 shows aggregated data on the disposition of appeals for the 

25 agencies.



Figure 24: Aggregated Data on the Disposition of Appeals:



[See PDF for image]



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Fees:



Fees reported as collected from FOIA requesters typically amount to 

only a few percentages of overall costs. In many cases, fees are not 

charged because they are minimal or because fees have been reduced or 

waived by the agency according to statute and guidance. Table 4 

summarizes the FOIA-related FTEs, costs, and fees collected, as 

reported by the 25 agencies. Figure 25 illustrates the costs reported 

for the agencies, and figure 26 compares the fees that agencies 

reported collecting with their reported FOIA costs. We did not verify 

the cost and fee data included in the agencies’ annual FOIA reports.



Table 4: Agency FOIA FTEs, Total Reported Costs, and Reported Fees 

Collected (Self-Reported):



Agency : AID; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 7; Total FTEs: 2000: 5.75; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 5.25; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: $423,400; Total 

costs: 2000: $307,400; Total costs: 2001: $327,400; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: $7,000; Fees collected: 2000: $2,470; Fees collected: 

2001: $780.



Agency : CIA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 65; Total FTEs: 2000: 77.8; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 74.8; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 9,600,000; Total 

costs: 2000: 9,800,000; Total costs: 2001: 8,800,000; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 1,395; Fees collected: 2000: 1,759; Fees collected: 

2001: 1,012.



Agency : USDA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 263; Total FTEs: 2000: 533; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 275.2; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 6,939,586; Total 

costs: 2000: 8,165,912; Total costs: 2001: 21,351,391; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 132,718; Fees collected: 2000: 117,530; Fees 

collected: 2001: 109,332.



Agency : DOC; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 19; Total FTEs: 2000: 27; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 27; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 2,199,282; Total 

costs: 2000: 2,279,662; Total costs: 2001: 1,869,965; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 38,119; Fees collected: 2000: 15,163; Fees collected: 

2001: 55,560.



Agency : DOD; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 776; Total FTEs: 2000: 890; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 870.77; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 32,618,179; Total 

costs: 2000: 36,526,671; Total costs: 2001: 39,712,317; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 834,816; Fees collected: 2000: 666,362; Fees 

collected: 2001: 652,516.



Agency : ED; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 10.7; Total FTEs: 2000: 9; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 0; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 554,978; Total costs: 

2000: 454,379; Total costs: 2001: 0; [Empty]; Fees collected: 1999: 

30,955; Fees collected: 2000: 22,409; Fees collected: 2001: 0.



Agency : DOE; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 56; Total FTEs: 2000: 58.5; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 69.7; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 3,641,888; Total 

costs: 2000: 2,442,974; Total costs: 2001: 3,179,599; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 20,956; Fees collected: 2000: 57,079; Fees collected: 

2001: 82,365.



Agency : HHS; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 175; Total FTEs: 2000: 244; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 234.407; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 11,037,990; 

Total costs: 2000: 10,806,267; Total costs: 2001: 13,213,667; [Empty]; 

Fees collected: 1999: 992,198; Fees collected: 2000: 1,120,221; Fees 

collected: 2001: 964,711.



Agency : HUD; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 16; Total FTEs: 2000: 40; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 39.8; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 1,067,431; Total 

costs: 2000: 2,191,000; Total costs: 2001: 2,692,271; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 21,572; Fees collected: 2000: 29,794; Fees collected: 

2001: 15,655.



Agency : DOI; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 128; Total FTEs: 2000: 131; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 167; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 5,346,161; Total 

costs: 2000: 5,190,926; Total costs: 2001: 5,685,147; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 105,666; Fees collected: 2000: 123,985; Fees 

collected: 2001: 102,726.



Agency : DOJ; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 1,047; Total FTEs: 2000: 

1,069.1; Total FTEs: 2001: 1,055.98; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 

59,234,089; Total costs: 2000: 69,269,121; Total costs: 2001: 

74,336,344; [Empty]; Fees collected: 1999: 89,432; Fees collected: 

2000: 126,339; Fees collected: 2001: 179,086.



Agency : DOL; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 201; Total FTEs: 2000: 229; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 183; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 4,950,000; Total 

costs: 2000: 5,700,000; Total costs: 2001: 5,450,000; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 199,766; Fees collected: 2000: 227,731; Fees 

collected: 2001: 218,862.



Agency : State; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 124; Total FTEs: 2000: 136; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 152; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 10,003,435; Total 

costs: 2000: 11,692,372; Total costs: 2001: 12,427,914; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 5,822; Fees collected: 2000: 5,822; Fees collected: 

2001: 6,352.



Agency : DOT; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 182; Total FTEs: 2000: 110.7; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 117.7; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 7,409,693; Total 

costs: 2000: 7,942,682; Total costs: 2001: 9,040,227; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 266,540; Fees collected: 2000: 328,356; Fees 

collected: 2001: 366,592.



Agency : Treasury; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 181; Total FTEs: 2000: 

200.9; Total FTEs: 2001: 201.51; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 

11,900,962; Total costs: 2000: 13,725,724; Total costs: 2001: 

13,417,024; [Empty]; Fees collected: 1999: 463,685; Fees collected: 

2000: 549,495; Fees collected: 2001: 583,445.



Agency : VA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 496.5; Total FTEs: 2000: 492; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 790.83; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 46,032,578; Total 

costs: 2000: 24,735,547; Total costs: 2001: 29,217,098; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 272,436; Fees collected: 2000: 334,831; Fees 

collected: 2001: 372,162.



Agency : EPA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 623; Total FTEs: 2000: 630; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 191.52; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 6,203,195; Total 

costs: 2000: 7,628,076; Total costs: 2001: 12,297,495; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 457,534; Fees collected: 2000: 394,970; Fees 

collected: 2001: 440,064.



Agency : FEMA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 3; Total FTEs: 2000: 1.5; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 3.8; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 123,123; Total 

costs: 2000: 106,659; Total costs: 2001: 194,724; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 6,224; Fees collected: 2000: 1,541; Fees collected: 

2001: 7,470.



Agency : GSA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 19; Total FTEs: 2000: 18; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 14; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 0; Total costs: 2000: 

0; Total costs: 2001: 830,000; [Empty]; Fees collected: 1999: 30,665; 

Fees collected: 2000: 32,552; Fees collected: 2001: 32,552.



Agency : NASA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 19; Total FTEs: 2000: 18; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 18.5; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 550,545; Total 

costs: 2000: 672,237; Total costs: 2001: 696,088; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 33,003; Fees collected: 2000: 34,578; Fees collected: 

2001: 44,428.



Agency : NSF; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 2; Total FTEs: 2000: 1.8; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 1.8; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 139,465; Total 

costs: 2000: 146,710; Total costs: 2001: 171,753; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 6,462; Fees collected: 2000: 1,491; Fees collected: 

2001: 1,227.



Agency : NRC; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 15; Total FTEs: 2000: 14; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 12.5; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 1,362,159; Total 

costs: 2000: 1,393,465; Total costs: 2001: 1,246,803; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 34,513; Fees collected: 2000: 23,059; Fees collected: 

2001: 21,036.



Agency : OPM; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 5; Total FTEs: 2000: 4.896; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 7.392; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 191,243; Total 

costs: 2000: 326,126; Total costs: 2001: 600,275; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 39,064; Fees collected: 2000: 40,515; Fees collected: 

2001: 21,427.



Agency : SBA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 30; Total FTEs: 2000: 31.2; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 33.5; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 281,428; Total 

costs: 2000: 338,812; Total costs: 2001: 341,902; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 11,458; Fees collected: 2000: 10,917; Fees collected: 

2001: 20,862.



Agency : SSA; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 111; Total FTEs: 2000: 142.5; 

Total FTEs: 2001: 147; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 4,421,154; Total 

costs: 2000: 16,218,513; Total costs: 2001: 14,676,122; [Empty]; Fees 

collected: 1999: 1,441,000; Fees collected: 2000: 2,487,319; Fees 

collected: 2001: 2,798,000.



Agency : Total; [Empty]; Total FTEs: 1999: 4,574; Total FTEs: 2000: 

5,116; Total FTEs: 2001: 4,695; [Empty]; Total costs: 1999: 

$226,231,964; Total costs: 2000: $238,061,234; Total costs: 2001: 

$271,775,526; [Empty]; Fees collected: 1999: $5,542,999; Fees 

collected: 2000: $6,756,287; Fees collected: 2001: $7,098,222.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-20001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of table]



Figure 25: Total Agency Reported Costs:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 26: Fees as Percentage of Agency’s Reported Costs:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Costs:



Agencies’ average costs per FOIA request vary widely. Figure 27 

indicates agencies’ average costs per request, calculated from the data 

in their annual reports. As figure 28 shows, including the VA requests 

in a 25-agency, average-cost-per-request calculation yields a figure 

less than half the average cost per request calculated for the other 24 

agencies. VA’s average cost per request is under $50, while the other 

agencies’ average costs vary widely.



Figure 27: Reported Cost per Request:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Figure 28: Reported Cost per Request Comparison:



[See PDF for image]



Note: The inclusion of VA’s requests (which are mostly Privacy Act 

requests counted as FOIA requests) cuts the governmentwide cost per 

request by more than half each year.



[A] Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The Department 

of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not available as 

of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Staffing (FTE):



The average number of FTEs reported per request also varies widely by 

agency. Figure 29 compares the agencies’ FTE-per-request ratios, 

calculated from annual FOIA report data. There is considerable 

variation in the FTE-per-request ratios. There is also variation in the 

nature of the FOIA requests that agencies and their components receive 

and the extent of search, review, and redaction required. We did not 

verify the FTE data provided in the agencies’ annual FOIA reports.



Figure 29: Reported FTEs per Request, by Agency:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1999-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



Component-Level Reporting:



Following new OIP guidance, agencies that use decentralized processing 

have increasingly reported annual data by component. Figure 30 shows 

that the number of annual reports that include workload data by 

component has increased from fiscal years 2000 to 2001.



Figure 30: Trend Toward Component-based Reporting of FOIA Data:



[See PDF for image]



Note 1: Fewer agencies are providing aggregated, agencywide FOIA 

processing time data. While a couple of agencies are reporting data by 

component and agencywide data, more are moving toward providing only 

component data, giving no clear indication of the health of agencywide 

FOIA efforts.



Note 2: Total aggregated plus disaggregated by component may not equal 

25 agencies, due to some agencies that provide both aggregated and 

disaggregated data.



Note 3: Year 2001 total includes data for only 24 agencies. The 

Department of Education fiscal year 2001 FOIA annual report was not 

available as of July 2002.



Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998-2001 (self-reported 

data).



[End of figure]



FOOTNOTES



[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management: Progress in 

Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, 

GAO-01-378 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).



[2] Justice issued fee waiver policy guidance to the heads of all 

federal departments and agencies on April 2, 1987. Under this guidance, 

requests for a waiver or reduction of fees are considered on a case-by-

case basis, taking both the public interest and the extent of the 

requester commercial interest into account.



[3] This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act 

of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570). See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act 

Fee Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 10011 (Mar. 27, 1987), effective 

April 27, 1987.



[4] See 5. U.S.C. sec. 552(g).



[5] See H. Rpt. 104-795, p. 30, and OMB, Updated Guidance on Developing 

a Handbook for Individuals Seeking Access to Public Information (M-98-

09, Apr. 23, 1998).



[6] These expanded on the traditional “reading room” records by 

including frequently requested records and an index to these as well as 

creating a new requirement for agency FOIA reports to be made available 

on line. See 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(2)(A) through (E) and 5 U.S.C. sec. 

552(e)(2). On-line availability was required for records created on or 

after November 1, 1996.



[7] See, for example, “Electronic Freedom of Information Amendments of 

1996,” Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of 

Representatives, H. Rpt. 104-795, Sept. 17, 1996, pp. 11-13.



[8] For purposes of this report, we will refer to this as on-line 

access or on-line availability.



[9] The Information Security Oversight Office receives its policy and 

program guidance from the National Security Council and is an 

administrative component of the National Archives and Records 

Administration. The office oversees the governmentwide security 

classification program.



[10] Sensitive but unclassified information was described as sensitive 

information related to America’s homeland security that might not meet 

one or more of the standards for classified national security 

information and whose protection should be considered carefully, on a 

case-by-case basis.



[11] Our 25-agency analyses do not include fiscal year 2001 Department 

of Education data because they were not available as of July 2002.



[12] VA reported receiving and processing well over 1 million FOIA 

requests--amounting to over half of the 25-agency total volume--each 

year from fiscal years 1999 through 2001.  VA’s reported workload 

consists largely of first-party requests for copies of patient records; 

VA officials said that these requests can be fulfilled relatively 

quickly.



[13] VA began including first-party (Privacy Act) requests for copies 

of patient records in its fiscal year 1999 annual report.



[14] The Department of Education did not have its fiscal year 2001 

annual report on line as of July 2002.



[15] This agency’s Web site was partially closed this year due to a 

court order.



[16] The FOIA requesters we contacted are widely recognized for their 

expertise in using the FOIA process. They make frequent and/or complex 

FOIA requests and advocate open public access to government 

information. Individuals from the following organizations met with us 

and/or provided written information (see app. I): Federation of 

American Scientists, Access Reports, American Library Association, Cohn 

& Marks (representing American Society of Newspaper Editors), OMB 

Watch, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Electronic Privacy 

Information Center, and National Security Archive.



[17] The March 19, 2002, White House Chief of Staff memorandum 

forwarded additional guidance from OIP and the Information Security 

Oversight Office that described “sensitive but unclassified” 

information and anticipated “FOIA-related homeland security issues” 

related to the need to protect sensitive information from inappropriate 

disclosures.



[18] GAO-01-378.



[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management: Progress 

in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act 

Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: