This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-260 
entitled 'Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance 
Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-
Effectiveness' which was released on March 20, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

March 2009: 

Freedom of Information Act: 

DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to 
Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: 

GAO-09-260: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-260, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to 
generally provide the public with access to government information. In 
December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, to improve 
agencies’ FOIA processing. The order required each agency to review its 
operations and develop plans for improvement. 

Since its establishment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 
accounted for a major and increasing portion of pending FOIA requests 
governmentwide. While it has reported achieving a notable reduction 
since 2006, DHS still possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests 
in the government. GAO was asked to determine (1) what key steps DHS 
has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities exist 
to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations 
across the department. To do this, GAO reviewed DHS’s improvement plan; 
examined policies, procedures, and other documentation; and interviewed 
agency officials. 

What GAO Found: 

DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. DHS developed an 
improvement plan that focused on eliminating its backlog of overdue 
requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and deploying 
more advanced technology. Further, the DHS Privacy Office has initiated 
actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight of FOIA 
operations throughout the department’s component agencies, including 
developing a departmentwide handbook, monitoring monthly data 
processing statistics, and instituting relevant training for employees. 
As a result, DHS has reported reducing its backlog by about 24 percent 
since implementing its plan. 

However, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of FOIA processing across the department. Specifically, 
implementation of the following practices could facilitate the 
processing of information requests at a number of its major components: 

* Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for 
monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help reduce the 
backlog of open requests. 

* Component-specific training. Component-specific training could 
enhance the efficiency of processing within component agencies. 

* Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online 
access to information concerning the status of their requests could 
contribute to better customer service and higher staff productivity. 

* Electronic dissemination of records. Releasing records in an 
electronic format could provide cost savings and increase efficiency. 

* Electronic redaction. By adopting electronic redaction more broadly, 
DHS may be able to reduce the staff time otherwise spent manually 
redacting records, while also improving the consistency of its 
responses to requests. 

By implementing these practices—which are already being used by certain 
DHS components and other agencies—across major DHS components, the 
department could further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, 
improve customer service, and respond to information requests in a more 
timely fashion. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that key practices used by certain DHS components 
and other agencies be implemented more consistently across the 
department. DHS concurred with GAO’s assessment and recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-260]. For more 
information, contact Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or 
wilshuseng@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program: 

Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing within 
Its Components: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its Major 
Components: 

Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process: 

Abbreviations: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

OIP: Office of Information and Privacy: 

OPEN Government Act: Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National 
Government Act of 2007: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

USCIS: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

USSS: United States Secret Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 20, 2009: 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable David E. Price: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Harold Rogers: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)[Footnote 1] establishes that 
federal agencies must generally provide the public with access to 
government information, thus enabling them to learn about government 
operations and decisions. Specific requests by the public for 
information through the act have led to the disclosure of waste, fraud, 
abuse, and wrongdoing in the government, as well as the identification 
of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs, and serious health hazards. 

In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, aimed at 
improving agencies' disclosure of information consistent with FOIA. 
[Footnote 2] The focus of the order was to achieve measurable 
improvements in processing (including reducing the backlog of overdue 
requests) and to reform programs that did not produce appropriate 
results. Among other things, this order required each agency to review 
its FOIA operations and develop improvement plans; each agency was to 
submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget summarizing the results of the agency's review 
and including a copy of its plan. These plans were to include specific 
outcome-oriented goals and timetables, by which the agency head was to 
evaluate the agency's success in implementing the plan. Agencies were 
also required to include a section in their fiscal year 2006 and 2007 
annual reports reporting on progress in implementing their plans. 

A major focus of the executive order was the reduction or elimination 
of "backlog": requests for records that have not been responded to 
within the statutory time limit--generally 20 working days.[Footnote 3] 
(For clarity, we refer to this as "backlog of overdue requests" or 
"overdue requests" to distinguish them from "pending requests," which 
are all open requests, whether or not they have been responded to 
within the statutory time limit.) The Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) accounts for a major portion of pending requests governmentwide 
and possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests in the 
government. 

In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees 
on Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of DHS's FOIA 
program. As agreed, our specific objectives were to determine (1) what 
key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what 
opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost- 
effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. 

To determine the key steps DHS has taken to enhance its program, we 
reviewed the goals contained in the DHS FOIA improvement plan and 
progress made on these goals, as reported in DHS's annual reports. We 
also assessed actions taken to achieve these goals at seven major DHS 
component agencies--those with the largest number of pending cases at 
the end of fiscal year 2007. These components are U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA), United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), the United States Secret Service (USSS), 
and the United States Coast Guard. 

To determine what opportunities, if any, exist to improve the 
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of operations across the department, 
we analyzed documentation from DHS regarding program structure, 
procedures, and resources. We also reviewed similar documentation from 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State--two 
agencies with types of information similar to DHS--and compared their 
programs with those of DHS. A more detailed description of our 
objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to March 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. Specifically, DHS has 
developed an improvement plan that included goals focused on 
eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, implementing enhanced 
training requirements, and deploying advanced technology. Further, the 
DHS Privacy Office has initiated several actions to ensure policy 
compliance and provide oversight of FOIA processing within departmental 
component agencies, such as developing a departmentwide handbook, 
monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting 
pertinent training for employees. As a result, three components have 
reported significantly reducing their backlog of overdue requests. For 
example, USCIS has reduced its backlog from approximately 89,000 in 
September 2006 to about 70,000 in October 2008, a 21 percent reduction. 
Overall, the department has reported achieving a backlog reduction of 
about 24 percent since implementation of its improvement plan. 

Nevertheless, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and 
cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. 
Specifically, consistent implementation of the following practices 
across major departmental components could facilitate the department's 
processing of information requests: 

* Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for 
monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help components 
reduce their backlogs. Three of the seven major component agencies 
within DHS have reported implementing monitoring and oversight 
mechanisms within their programs and have reduced their backlogs. The 
remaining four have not implemented such mechanisms, nor have they made 
comparable reductions in their backlogs. By more consistently 
establishing monitoring and oversight processes, DHS could reduce the 
risk of not being able to provide responses to requests within the 
statutory time limits. 

* Component-specific training. Component-specific training--which goes 
beyond general training to address processing details that are unique 
within each of the components--could enhance the consistency and 
efficiency of processing within those components. Of the seven major 
components, five have begun implementing in-house component-specific 
training for their staff. Officials from one of these components stated 
that staff appeared more prepared to respond to requests, particularly 
regarding the application of exemptions. While the other DHS components 
provide some form of training to their staff, it is not tailored to 
their unique needs and circumstances. By developing and implementing 
specialized training programs for their staff, components may be able 
to increase the consistency and efficiency of their processing. 

* Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online 
access to information concerning the status of their requests can 
contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity. Two of 
the seven major components have deployed or are in the process of 
deploying an online status-check service, while five do not provide the 
service. Officials from the component that has deployed the service 
reported a reduction in the number of customer service calls, which has 
allowed staff to spend more time on other duties. By implementing this 
service more broadly, the department might be able to realize cost 
savings and customer service benefits. 

* Dissemination of records in an electronic format. The format (paper 
or CD) in which a FOIA office releases records to requesters can affect 
operating expenditures and processing efficiency. Three of the seven 
major components have adopted electronic dissemination for larger 
requests and reported reducing operating costs as a result. By 
disseminating more records in an electronic form, DHS may be able to 
reduce the operational costs of processing requests. 

* Electronic redaction. Currently, five of DHS's seven major components 
have broadly adopted electronic redaction processes and have reported 
gains in staff efficiency as a result. The other two major components 
continue to manually redact most records. By adopting electronic 
redaction more broadly, these components may be able to reduce the time 
otherwise spent manually redacting records, while also improving the 
consistency of their products. 

To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the 
department's FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security take actions to ensure that these key practices are 
consistently adopted across the department's major components. In 
written comments on a draft of this report, DHS concurred with our 
assessment and recommendations and described actions underway to 
address the recommendations. 

Background: 

FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and 
information on the basis of the principles of openness and 
accountability in government. Before the act (originally enacted in 
1966),[Footnote 4] the government required individuals to demonstrate 
"a need to know" before granting the right to examine federal records. 
FOIA established a "right to know" standard, under which an 
organization or any member of the public could receive access to 
information held by federal agencies without demonstrating a need or 
reason. The "right to know" standard shifted the burden of proof from 
the individual to government agencies and required agencies to provide 
proper justification when denying requests for access to records. 

FOIA provides the public with access to government information either 
through "affirmative agency disclosure"--publishing information in the 
Federal Register or on the Internet or making it available in reading 
rooms--or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public 
requests for records are the best known type of disclosure, and require 
agencies to promptly provide records in any readily producible form or 
format specified by the requester. 

Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act 
prescribes nine specific categories of information that can be exempt 
from disclosure, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and 
certain confidential commercial or financial information, certain 
personnel and medical files, and certain law enforcement records. 
[Footnote 5] When agencies deny all or part of a request, the act 
requires that agencies notify requesters of the reasons for the adverse 
determination and grants requesters the right to appeal the decision. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the primary source of FOIA oversight 
and policy guidance for agencies. Within the department, the Office of 
Information and Privacy (OIP) has lead responsibility for providing 
guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. OIP issues a 
guide addressing various aspects of the act and conducts a variety of 
related training programs for personnel across the government. 

Executive Order Led to Activities Aimed at Improving FOIA Operations: 

On December 14, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, 
setting forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA 
administration. The order directed agencies to provide requesters with 
courteous and appropriate service, as well as ways to learn about the 
FOIA process, the status of their requests, and the public availability 
of other agency records. The order also instructed agencies to process 
requests efficiently, achieve measurable process improvements 
(including a reduction in the backlog of overdue requests),[Footnote 6] 
and reform programs that did not produce appropriate results. A major 
focus of the order was for agency plans to include specific actions to 
eliminate or reduce any backlog of overdue requests. 

To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that 
agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their programs. 
The officers were directed to review their operations and develop 
improvement plans to ensure that administration of the act was in 
accordance with applicable law, as well as with the policy set forth in 
the order. By June 2006, agencies were to submit reports that included 
the results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans. 

In April 2006, OIP posted guidance to assist federal agencies in 
implementing the order's requirements for reviews and improvement 
plans.[Footnote 7] The guidance suggested several potential areas that 
agencies might consider when conducting their reviews, such as enhanced 
training, centralization of administration, automation of request 
tracking, automation of electronic records dissemination, and improved 
records redaction. 

In order to extend the backlog reduction efforts beyond the time frame 
of the executive order, in September 2007, OIP posted guidance to 
agencies on submitting backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 
2009, and 2010.[Footnote 8] Any agency that had a request or appeal 
pending beyond the statutory time limit at the end of fiscal year 2007 
was to establish backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 
and 2010. In addition, in June 2008, OIP posted guidance requiring all 
agencies that had not made progress in reducing their backlogs over the 
previous 2 years to prepare backlog reduction plans. 

On December 31, 2007, the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our 
National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) was enacted. This 
law amended FOIA by, among other things, addressing the time limits for 
agencies to act on requests, requiring agencies to designate chief FOIA 
officers, requiring that agencies assign a tracking number to each 
request requiring more than 10 days to process, and requiring agencies 
to establish a telephone line or Internet service that requesters could 
use to determine the status of their request. 

An Overview of the FOIA Process at Federal Agencies: 

Although the specific procedures for handling requests vary among 
agencies, the major phases in the process are similar across the 
government: receiving the request, logging and scoping the request, 
searching for and retrieving potentially responsive records, preparing 
records for release, performing a final review, and releasing records 
to the requester. Figure 1 depicts the process, from the receipt of a 
request through the release of records. 

Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

1) Receive request; 

2) Process request: 
* Log FOIA request; 
* Scope request; 
* Estimate fees; 
* Generate initial response; 

3) Retrieve records: 
* Search for responsive records; 
* Request records; 
* Review responsive records; 

4) Process records: 
* Make redactions: 
* Apply exemption codes; 
* Calculate fees; 

5) Approve release of records: 
* Review redacted records; 
* Generate response; 
* Approve release; 

6) Release records. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of figure] 

The process begins when an agency receives (whether by mail, phone, 
fax, or over the Internet) a request for federal records. A staff 
member logs the request in the agency's tracking system, and then 
reviews the request to determine its scope, estimates fees, and 
provides an initial response to the requester. Next, the staff searches 
for responsive records, which may include searching for records at 
multiple locations and program offices. After they are located, the 
records are reviewed to confirm that they are within the scope of the 
request. 

The staff then prepares records by removing any nonreleasable 
information based upon the statutory exemptions--a process known as 
redaction. Once records have been prepared, the staff calculates any 
applicable fees for research time and reproduction costs.[Footnote 9] 
After redaction and fee calculation, the staff submits the records for 
a final review, possibly by the agency's general counsel. If records 
pass this final review, the agency generates a response letter 
summarizing actions regarding the request and releases the records to 
the requester. 

Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for 
specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the 
appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive 
processing, depending on their complexity, the volume of information 
involved, whether the agency FOIA office is required to work with 
offices with relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain 
information, the requirement for a FOIA officer to review and redact 
information in the responsive material, the requirement to communicate 
with the requester about the scope of the request, and the requirement 
to communicate with the requester about the fees that will be charged 
for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be waived). 

The organizational structure of an agency's program can affect its 
processing procedures. While some agencies centralize processing in one 
main office, others receive and process requests at the division or 
field office level. The structure influences how and where requests are 
received by the agency, how an agency searches for responsive records, 
the availability of relevant subject matter experts, and how an agency 
monitors the status of requests. 

The DHS FOIA Program Is Largely Decentralized: 

Established in 2003, DHS is responsible for leading the effort to 
secure the United States by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks 
and protecting against, and responding to, threats and hazards to the 
nation. To accomplish its mission, DHS incorporated 22 separate federal 
agencies and organizations, including FEMA (formerly an independent 
agency) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly part 
of DOJ). Several of these agencies remained separate component agencies 
within DHS, while others were reorganized into new DHS components. The 
functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, 
were divided among three DHS components: CBP, ICE, and USCIS. 

FOIA processing is implemented separately within each of the major DHS 
component agencies. At the department level, the Privacy Office 
coordinates agencywide implementation by developing policy, performing 
oversight of component operations, providing training, and preparing 
the annual FOIA report. The Privacy Office also processes requests 
related to DHS headquarters operations. However, all other processing 
of requests is handled by agency components, which staff and operate 
their own offices. FOIA officers within these components are 
responsible for managing and implementing their respective operations, 
as well as defining their administrative structures. 

The scale and performance of FOIA processing vary across the 
department. The components with the largest reported number of pending 
cases at the end of fiscal year 2007 included CBP, FEMA, ICE, TSA, 
USCIS, USSS, and the United States Coast Guard. These components are 
also among those to have received and processed the largest number of 
requests in fiscal year 2007. 

DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program: 

In response to Executive Order 13392, DHS and its major components have 
taken steps to enhance the department's program. DHS developed an 
improvement plan that included goals focused on eliminating its backlog 
of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and 
deploying advanced technology. In addition, the DHS Privacy Office 
initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance and provide 
oversight of individual components, such as developing a departmentwide 
handbook, completing file reviews at each component, monitoring monthly 
data processing statistics, and instituting training for affected 
employees. As a result, several of the components have reported 
decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. Specifically, three 
components reported achieving large reductions in their backlogs. 

The DHS Improvement Plan Outlined Goals for Eliminating Backlog and 
Improving Training and Technology: 

In January 2007, DHS submitted an improvement plan that focused on 
eliminating the backlog of overdue requests, enhancing education and 
training, and implementing technological advancements. In order to 
formulate its plan and specific goals, DHS surveyed each component and 
office on specific issues relating to FOIA operations, such as staffing 
levels, electronic processing capabilities, training opportunities and 
requirements, and impediments other than staffing that contribute to 
backlogs. 

To reduce its backlog, DHS established goals that included hiring 
additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at USCIS, 
meeting with an important requester group (the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association) to discuss file processing and customer service 
enhancements, and establishing a monitoring program under which all 
components submitted weekly and monthly data to the Chief FOIA Officer. 

Goals related to education and training included establishing a renewed 
emphasis on the importance of FOIA and instituting semiannual FOIA 
officer meetings; they also required components and offices to provide 
all employees with information about their obligations and all 
professional staff who spend more than half of their time implementing 
the act to take annual training offered by DOJ's OIP. 

Lastly, goals for technological improvements included identifying a Web-
based case management software application with electronic tracking 
capabilities, setting a recommended departmentwide standard for 
processing software, requiring all component offices to have a Web site 
or a link to the departmental FOIA Web site from their component home 
page, and increasing proactive disclosure of documents on component and 
office Web sites to allow public access to records without submitting a 
formal request. 

The DHS Privacy Office Has Taken Steps to Improve Departmental 
Oversight of Its FOIA Operations: 

In response to the executive order and to elevate the importance of the 
act at the department level, the Chief FOIA Officer established a new 
position of Deputy Chief FOIA Officer within the DHS Privacy 
Office.[Footnote 10] This position was established to, among other 
things, assure program oversight over all of the components. 

The Privacy Office initiated several actions to ensure policy 
compliance and provide oversight to individual components. For example, 
the office developed a handbook for use departmentwide. The document, 
which is undergoing internal review, establishes policies and 
procedures that each component must follow. In addition, the Deputy 
Chief FOIA Officer and the Associate Director of Disclosure Policy and 
FOIA Program Development visited each component for an informal file 
review. They reviewed select cases at each component in order to ensure 
compliance with department policies and identify any processing 
problems. If a problem was detected, they revisited those components to 
help develop a plan of action to remedy the problem. 

In an effort to reduce backlog, the DHS improvement plan required all 
components to submit monthly data reports. These reports included the 
number of open cases, time ranges of the open cases, the date of the 
oldest request, the number of staff, and the number of requests 
received and processed that month. After receiving the reports, the 
Deputy Chief FOIA Officer was to notify each component via e-mail 
regarding their progress against backlog goals set in response to DOJ 
guidance. 

Lastly, to ensure compliance with department policies, the Privacy 
Office has set requirements for training. The DHS improvement plan 
stated that education and training would ensure a consistent 
interpretation of common aspects of the administrative process. 
Accordingly, it required that all components make available "FOIA 101" 
training for employees with FOIA-related duties. The training includes 
an overview of the history of the act, DHS's FOIA organization chart, 
information on the life cycle of a request, staff responsibilities, and 
information on exemptions. In addition, all staff that spent more than 
50 percent of their work time on FOIA were required to take annual 
training offered by DOJ's OIP or an equivalent. 

Several DHS Components Have Reported Reductions in Their Backlogs of 
Overdue Requests as a Result of Departmental Improvement Efforts: 

Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392 
and DHS's improvement plan, three of the seven major components have 
reported progress in decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. As 
of October 17, 2008, the overall departmental backlog has been reduced 
about 24 percent since September 2006. Factors contributing to this 
reduction include enhanced oversight by the Privacy Office and program 
modifications instituted by individual components, such as centralizing 
operations, hiring additional personnel, and technology improvements. 
Table 1 shows the reported overall DHS reduction in overdue requests 
and the changes in overdue requests experienced by each of its major 
components. 

Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its Major 
Components: 

DHS component: DHS total; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 99,211; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 75,163; 
Fall/rise: Number: -24,048; 
Fall/rise: Percentage:-24.2%. 

DHS component: ICE; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 7,346; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 16; 
Fall/rise: Number: -7,330; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -99.8. 

DHS component: USCIS; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 89,124; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 70,175; 
Fall/rise: Number: -18,949; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -21.3. 

DHS component: USSS; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 730; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 560; 
Fall/rise: Number: -170; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -23.3. 

DHS component: Coast Guard[A]; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 906; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 1,152; 
Fall/rise: Number: +246; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +27.2. 

DHS component: FEMA; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 236; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 619; 
Fall/rise: Number: +383; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +162.3. 

DHS component: CBP; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 524; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 2,198; 
Fall/rise: Number: +1,674; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +319.5. 

DHS component: TSA; 
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 45; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 321; 
Fall/rise: Number: +276; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +613.3. 

DHS component: All other components; 
umber of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 300; 
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 122; 
Fall/rise: Number: -178; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -59.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of self-reported agency data. 

[A] Coast Guard was unable to report its number of overdue requests for 
September 2006; monthly numbers used are from August 2006 and represent 
headquarters' overdue cases only. 

[End of table] 

USCIS has reported a substantial reduction in its backlog. Despite 
having one of the highest backlogs within the department and the 
federal government, it has reduced its backlog by 18,949 requests 
(about 21 percent) since September 2006. Component officials attributed 
the reduction to the centralization of their FOIA program, hiring of 
additional staff, and the elimination of 23,179 requests whose 
requesters did not have continued interest in obtaining the 
information. In October 2007, USCIS completed a transition from 50 
decentralized FOIA offices to a single centralized office. The 
centralization enabled them to maximize their resources and focus on 
reducing their backlog of overdue requests. The component has also 
hired 10 additional staff since the centralization. In addition, in 
July 2008, USCIS awarded a backlog reduction contract intended to 
eliminate its backlog within 15 to 18 months from the award of the 
contract. The contract is to provide 74 staff that will be tasked to 
process the oldest requests until the entire backlog is exhausted. 

Likewise, ICE has also reported a considerable reduction in its backlog 
of overdue requests. According to agency officials, an almost 100 
percent reduction has been achieved since September 2006, reducing the 
number of overdue requests by about 7,300. The component took a variety 
of actions, including centralizing its program and implementing a new 
electronic tracking system. The FOIA Officer stated that centralization 
of the program allowed for greater consistency in processing procedures 
and the use of technology. In addition, ICE was able to eliminate 
approximately 1,200 overdue requests by determining that the requesters 
were no longer interested in them. 

As part of its operational improvements in FOIA processing, DHS 
officials reported that they had improved the way the department 
handles requests relating to Alien-File (A-File) records,[Footnote 11] 
which are processed by USCIS and ICE. Both components experienced a 
large reduction of their backlogs by streamlining the approach used for 
processing these requests. Previously, a major hurdle these components 
faced was the sharing of the existing 55 million hardcopy A-Files. 
Because the A-Files contain both benefit and enforcement documents, an 
individual file may be in the possession of either component at any 
given time. When either one of the components received a request for 
the contents of a file, that component had to locate the file and 
determine whether it should have responsibility for processing the 
request. After November 2006, the ownership of all A-Files was 
transferred to USCIS. In order to facilitate faster processing, ICE 
provided USCIS with a processing guide containing the policies, 
procedures, and background information necessary to enable USCIS to 
process A-File requests on behalf of ICE. This process eliminated the 
need to refer records to ICE for review and determination of 
releasability, which could result in unnecessary delays. 

USSS reported a 23 percent reduction in its backlog of overdue requests 
since September 2006, reducing the number of overdue requests by 170. 
Officials stated that this reduction was mainly due to the addition of 
staff supporting the FOIA mission and the creation of a task force, 
consisting of employees from each directorate, to focus on closing 
overdue requests over a 3-month span. 

Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing within 
Its Components: 

DHS components and other federal agencies have identified key practices 
they have adopted to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of 
their request-processing operations. These key practices include 
internal monitoring and oversight to help reduce component backlogs, 
specialized training within components, providing requesters with 
online access to information concerning the status of their requests, 
releasing records in an electronic format, and the use of electronic 
redaction. 

Internal Monitoring and Oversight Could Help Reduce DHS Components' 
Backlogs: 

Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS 
components, implementing an internal monitoring and oversight process 
can help agencies better track their processing efficiency and thus 
reduce their backlogs of requests. These organizations have found that 
the ability to monitor the status of incoming requests can greatly 
enhance their ability to meet the statutory time limit to respond to 
them because it can help reduce the amount of time needed to determine 
the location of responsive records and retrieve them for processing. 
Close monitoring helps ensure that requests and their associated 
records do not languish unattended at any given step in the process. 

DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review has reported that it 
implemented an oversight and monitoring process for its FOIA program. 
It operates a centralized program, where all requests are received at 
the main office. Responsive records may be located at any one of the 54 
immigration courts throughout the United States. According to DOJ 
officials, in order to facilitate a timely and efficient response from 
the immigration courts, at the end of each day, the main office 
automatically generates and sends a report to any immigration court 
that has been identified as possessing responsive records for an 
outstanding request. The officials stated that by closely monitoring 
those courts that were slow in sending responsive records, it has been 
able to obtain records in a more timely manner. 

Likewise, within DHS, three of the seven major DHS components have 
reported implementing mechanisms for monitoring the processing of 
information requests. For example, USCIS operates a centralized FOIA 
program from the National Records Center in Lee's Summit, Missouri. All 
requests are received at the center and imported into an electronic 
tracking system. The system allows staff to track the status and 
whereabouts of each request from receipt until it has been closed. In 
addition, the component uses bar codes to associate records with a 
physical location. As a result, files can be rapidly located at the 
center or at any other location. The chief program official stated that 
the use of the bar codes greatly sped up the process of locating 
responsive records for processing. In these cases, staff can identify 
the location of records using the bar code and contact the appropriate 
office to obtain copies for processing. In addition, USCIS has staff 
dedicated to the continual monitoring of outstanding records. Each 
month, USCIS sends reports to its field sites and other components that 
have outstanding records in order to expedite the process. According to 
program officials, these monitoring and oversight mechanisms have 
contributed to the reduction of the backlog of overdue requests. 

ICE officials also reported that they have implemented monitoring and 
oversight mechanisms. The component operates a centralized program, 
where all of the requests are received at the main office. After a 
request is received, staff input it into a tracking system, and then it 
is assigned to the appropriate office for processing. The tracking 
system allows staff to obtain key information about the request, such 
as the responsible office, the date by which the records need to be 
received at the main office, and if applicable, the number of days by 
which the request is overdue. In addition, the program director 
generates a weekly report that identifies any requests that have not 
been responded to within the allotted time and sends messages to notify 
program offices of their overdue responses. In order to facilitate 
timely and efficient retrieval of records, program offices have the 
ability to provide their responses via e-mail to the main office. The 
program director stated that this monitoring process and the ability of 
program offices to send responsive records by e-mail have greatly 
improved the timeliness of responses to information requests and 
reduced the backlog of overdue requests. 

In technical comments on a draft of this report, USSS stated that it 
has a system for tracking due dates for incoming requests and also has 
the ability to generate reports to monitor overdue requests to ensure 
timely responses. 

In contrast to these examples, the other major components have not yet 
implemented comparable monitoring and oversight mechanisms. For 
example, although CBP, FEMA, and TSA operate centralized FOIA programs 
where all requests are received or tracked at one location, none 
currently has a mechanism for obtaining responsive records from field 
offices expeditiously. 

Lastly, because the Coast Guard operates its program in a decentralized 
fashion--each of its 1,300 units is able to directly receive and 
respond to requests--it has limited ability to monitor the status of 
individual requests or whether responsive records have been located and 
retrieved. The Chief of the Office of Information Management estimated 
that between two-thirds and three-fourths of all requests are received 
and answered in field offices. The Coast Guard currently does not have 
an oversight mechanism to monitor the timeliness of processing at its 
individual units. 

Given the success of using monitoring and oversight processes at DOJ 
and two DHS components, the department may be able to improve 
responsiveness to requests and reduce backlogs at other major 
components by establishing mechanisms to efficiently monitor and 
oversee internal processing of information requests within those 
components. 

Component-Specific Training Could Help Enhance the Efficiency of FOIA 
Processing: 

Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS 
components, component-specific training--which goes beyond general 
training to address processing details that are unique within each of 
the components--can help ensure consistent administration of the FOIA 
process within each component. The department improvement plan 
acknowledges that specialized training is essential for processing 
professionals. Further, DOJ's OIP highlighted the need for enhanced 
training in its guidance on activities required by Executive Order 
13392. The guidance states that the issuance of Executive Order 13392 
is a good occasion for agencies to, among other things, consider 
whether they are conducting their own training sessions with sufficient 
regularity. 

While certain basic aspects of FOIA implementation are the same 
throughout a large department such as DHS, other aspects of the process 
can vary in significant ways across the department's components. For 
example, each component possesses different types of records; some 
agencies may have primarily first-party records (such as USCIS's A- 
Files), while others may have more records relating to investigations 
(such as the Coast Guard's Marine Investigations). Further, component 
agencies are likely to utilize specific exemptions that directly relate 
to the records they possess. For example, some may frequently use an 
exemption that focuses on an agency's internal personnel rules and 
practices, while others may more often use an exemption for information 
compiled for law enforcement purposes. 

Two component agencies within DOJ reported utilizing component-specific 
training for their staff to enhance the efficiency of their processing 
information requests. Specifically, according to agency officials, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides its new staff with entry-
level, basic, and advanced training programs. The entry-level staff 
undergo a 6-week training regimen that includes an overview of the type 
of records at the FBI, how to scope requests and search for records, 
and how to use the bureau's tracking system. After the staff complete 
the entry-level training, they are required to take one of two 
additional training classes, depending on their job responsibilities. 
Advanced training is also available on litigation support and 
prepublication review. FBI officials stated that, in their opinion, the 
training program was responsible for the retention of qualified staff 
because the progression and challenges presented by the various levels 
of training allowed staff to develop their FOIA expertise. 

Likewise, DOJ's Executive Office for United States Attorneys offers a 
specialized training conference for FOIA staff at each of the U.S. 
Attorney offices. The training conference includes explanations of FOIA 
exemptions and how they are used, a discussion of the intake process, 
examples of forms used in the process, and a discussion of the FOIA 
contacts' role. In addition, officials stated that the Executive Office 
records its training conference and makes it available online for staff 
to view. Each new field office employee is required to take the 
training. 

Five components within DHS have similarly implemented in-house, 
component-specific FOIA training for their staff: 

* USCIS provides newly hired staff with a mandatory training program 
that includes guidance tailored to its program. In a report written in 
response to the Executive Order, the USCIS's Ombudsman recognized that 
frequent and useful training for new and existing staff had been 
lacking and recommended that a training program be developed and 
implemented for all staff to ensure effective compliance. In response 
to the recommendation, USCIS developed a mandatory in-house training 
program that includes hands-on modules for processing and approving 
information requests. The new program included a focus on rules 
regarding exemptions as applied to USCIS, analysis of typical case 
studies, and procedures for handling documents from other components, 
such as ICE. The Chief of the USCIS FOIA Program stated that staff who 
had participated in the new training program appeared more prepared to 
respond to requests, particularly regarding the application of 
exemptions. 

* The Coast Guard provides an annual specialized training seminar to 
all FOIA Coordinators and personnel who process requests. The training 
includes a description of records, good record management practices, 
overview of exemptions, multiunit responses, and search standards. 

* ICE hosts a specialized "virtual-university" training module, which 
includes information on how to process a request, what files are 
covered by FOIA, and what may be withheld from disclosure under an 
exemption. 

* TSA offers a specialized online training module, which describes 
typical types of requested records and how to process a request. 

* CBP provides an 8-hour training class several times a year where 
staff are introduced to the procedures involved in responding to a 
request in a timely manner, how to create a case file, how to conduct 
an adequate search for records that are responsive to the request, and 
how to employ the nine exemptions for CBP records. Additionally, they 
also provide tailored training sessions to offices that handle certain 
specialized records. 

In contrast, two major DHS components do not make specialized, 
component-specific training available to their staff. USSS and FEMA 
provide only on-the-job training or "generic" training offered by 
outside contractors. For example, USSS provides on-the-job training and 
shadowing and mentoring programs for its staff, who are required to 
attend outside training, such as the DOJ OIP training, American Society 
of Access Professionals conferences, and classes at the United States 
Department of Agriculture Graduate School. 

While generic training offered by outside professionals is valuable, 
component-specific training can better ensure compliance with component-
specific policies and procedures and greater consistency in the 
application of exemptions. Also, offering this specialized training to 
new staff ensures that they are knowledgeable about policies and 
component-specific practices before they begin processing requests, 
which can yield faster processing times and more accurate and 
consistent processing. USSS and FEMA may have opportunities to enhance 
the consistency and accuracy of their processing by developing and 
implementing specialized training programs for their staff. 

Providing Request Status Information Online Could Enhance Staff 
Productivity and Customer Service at DHS Components: 

Based on experience at a major DHS component, providing requesters with 
online access to information concerning the status of their requests 
can contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity. 
According to officials at USCIS, not only does an online status-check 
service provide requesters with instant access to information, it also 
reduces the need to divert staff resources away from request processing 
to respond to telephone status inquiries. 

Actions at USCIS have shown that productivity and efficiency can be 
enhanced by implementing an online status-check service. According to 
component officials, since it was initiated in May 2008, the USCIS 
service has contributed to improved staff productivity and provided 
requesters with faster access to status information. The system allows 
requesters to access status information by entering their unique 
tracking number into a form on USCIS's FOIA Web site. The Web site then 
returns real-time status information extracted from the component's 
tracking system. 

Agency officials reported that the service has improved the efficiency 
of their program. Since deploying the service in May 2008, USCIS 
reported experiencing a reduction of customer service phone calls 
received in the following 3 months. As reflected in table 3 below, the 
monthly call volume for the months following implementation (May 
through October) was less than during the 4 months prior to 
implementation (January through April). USCIS officials estimated that 
60 percent of all FOIA-related customer service phone calls are status 
inquiries. 

Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume: 

Number of customer service calls received, 2008: 
January: 2,857; 
February: 2,636; 
March: 2,619; 
April: 2,803; 
May: 2,677; 
June: 2,554; 
July: 2,449; 
August: 2,301; 
September: 2,318; 
October: 2,473. 

Source: Self-reported agency data. 

[End of table] 

The Director of the National Records Center stated that the online 
status-check service, by reducing the number of customer service calls, 
has also allowed staff to spend more time on other duties, such as 
processing requests. Before USCIS deployed the service, requesters 
seeking information about their requests needed to call the service 
center and speak directly with staff. 

Like USCIS, ICE has also developed and implemented an online status-
check service. Deployed in December 2008, it allows requesters to query 
the tracking system regarding the status of their requests by filling 
out a form on the agency's Web site. ICE's FOIA Officer described the 
online status-check service as part of an effort to enhance customer 
service and reduce the number of status request phone calls ICE 
receives. At the time of our review, the ICE service had not been in 
operation long enough for data to be collected on the benefits it has 
yielded. 

In contrast to USCIS and ICE, the other five major DHS components have 
not yet deployed online status-check services. In order for agency 
components to provide an online status-check capability, they must 
maintain tracking systems that capture status information for all 
requests and can make it available for online queries. Three of the 
five components operate comprehensive tracking systems but do not 
provide the service. The other two neither provide an online service 
nor possess a sufficiently comprehensive tracking system to support 
one. 

USSS is an example of a component that has not deployed an online 
status-check service, even though it operates a comprehensive tracking 
system. The agency instructs requesters who are seeking status 
information to call the FOIA service center or submit their request's 
unique tracking number through its Web site. Once a status inquiry is 
received, staff search the tracking system to provide requesters with 
status information. Agency officials stated that, in response to 
Executive Order 13392, USSS is considering the feasibility of deploying 
an online status system. By deploying such a service, the component may 
be able to reduce the staff resources it currently devotes to 
responding to status inquiries. 

Like USSS, FEMA does not provide an online service, despite operating a 
comprehensive tracking system. Currently, when requesters call or e-
mail FEMA's central office seeking status information, staff must 
contact the relevant program offices to determine the status of the 
request and relay that information to the requester. Agency officials 
stated that responding to requester calls to its FOIA Helpline was a 
full-time job, and that transitioning to an online status service would 
be cost-effective and efficient for both the agency and requesters. 
Although agency officials stated that FEMA is developing a database 
feature to allow requesters to view status information through its FOIA 
Web site, they did not provide an estimate of when the service would be 
available. Until the online status service is made available, FEMA will 
likely continue to devote significant staff resources to responding to 
status inquiries. 

TSA also continues to use staff to manually search its tracking system 
to determine a request's status. TSA officials stated that, for 
technical reasons, it would not be feasible to develop an online status 
service based on its current comprehensive tracking system. Instead, 
staff reply to requester inquiries in the same format (e-mail or phone) 
that the inquiry was received, typically within 24 to 48 hours. Agency 
officials also stated that the FOIA office is exploring adopting other 
case management software applications that could support an online 
status service. If TSA ultimately develops such a capability, it might 
be able to reduce the staff resources devoted to responding to status 
inquiries. 

Currently, the FOIA tracking systems at the Coast Guard and CBP are not 
sufficiently comprehensive to support an online status service. The 
Coast Guard operates separate tracking systems for each of its 1,300 
field offices. Requesters seeking the status of their requests must 
inquire directly with the Coast Guard field office responsible for 
processing the request. Similarly, CBP cannot yet provide a component-
wide online status service because its tracking system does not capture 
current status information for commercial or financial requests 
processed by offices or ports other than its central office. For such 
requests, CBP's tracking system, which is manually updated each month, 
records when the request was received and to which office or port it 
was referred. The tracking system is also updated when the office or 
port notifies the central office that the request was processed. CBP 
officials stated that they had not deployed an online service for 
noncommercial and nonfinancial requests because CBP does not provide 
outside entities access to its tracking system. As a result, requesters 
seeking status information for noncommercial or nonfinancial requests, 
which account for approximately 95 percent of CBP's requests, must 
phone their inquiry to personnel at CBP's central office. By providing 
an online status check service, the Coast Guard and CBP could improve 
customer service and reduce staff resources devoted to responding to 
status inquiries. 

Releasing Records for Large Requests in an Electronic Format Could 
Provide Cost Savings and Improve Efficiency: 

The format (paper or electronic) on which records are released to 
requesters can affect operating expenditures and processing efficiency. 
Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS 
components, using electronic dissemination to respond to "large" 
requests (requests involving many document pages) can decrease the 
amount of resources expended on paper, toner, and postage. In such 
cases, agency officials report that the cost of copying responsive 
records onto a CD and mailing the CD to the requester is generally 
significantly less than printing and mailing the information on paper. 

DOJ has used electronic dissemination to improve the efficiency of its 
processing. For example, the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
has used electronic dissemination to streamline its FOIA process. Prior 
to adopting a policy of providing records on CD by default, the 
Executive Office's staff often engaged in lengthy negotiations with 
requesters over reproduction fees. Agency officials cited the 
transition to releasing records on CD as a major factor in reducing the 
agency's backlog because it reduced the need for staff to spend time 
negotiating over fees with requesters. 

Likewise, three of DHS's seven major components have used electronic 
dissemination to reduce operating costs when responding to large 
requests: 

* USCIS officials reported that they respond to approximately 60 
percent of requests by mailing electronic copies of records on CD, 
accounting for 80 percent of the total number of released pages. The 
remaining 40 percent of requests are released on paper, either because 
the request is less than 15 pages or because the requester specifically 
requests a paper format. Although they have not documented the costs of 
providing responsive records on CD, USCIS officials estimated that 
electronic dissemination had reduced their paper and toner costs by 
half. 

* ICE also has a policy of releasing records on CD, except when a 
requester specifies paper. ICE's FOIA Information System Security 
Officer estimated that electronic dissemination had reduced the 
office's paper consumption by almost 90 percent. 

* FEMA also has a policy of using electronic dissemination (on CD) for 
large requests. 

DHS's four remaining major components release records on paper, unless 
otherwise specified by the requester: 

* CBP officials stated that they were focusing their efforts on hiring 
staff to process requests and they would consider process enhancements, 
such as electronic dissemination, once they achieved full staffing. 

* Coast Guard officials stated that they had not adopted a policy of 
defaulting to an electronic format because they had not received 
guidance from DHS on this subject and because it may be less expensive 
for them to reproduce records on paper. 

* TSA officials stated that their FOIA office releases records on paper 
based on its understanding that this is the preference of requesters, 
and only provides records in electronic format when specifically 
requested. 

* USSS officials stated that the agency considered adopting a policy of 
releasing records electronically or on CD when FOIA requesters did not 
specify a preference for paper, but decided not to adopt such a policy 
out of deference to requesters who do not have the means or capability 
to access information stored electronically. 

While it may be less expensive to respond to small requests in a paper 
format, it can be more economical to respond to large requests in an 
electronic format. Adopting a release policy that more fully 
incorporates electronic means of dissemination when it is economically 
advisable could reduce the operational costs of processing requests, as 
well as the staff resources diverted to negotiating the release format 
with requesters. 

Use of Electronic Redaction Could Allow Efficient Processing of 
Requests: 

Rapidly and accurately removing (redacting) nonreleasable data from 
requested records is an integral part of responding to FOIA requests in 
a timely manner. DOJ's Implementation Guidance notes that electronic 
redaction software can enable agencies to process requests more 
efficiently than through manual redaction.[Footnote 12] Based on 
actions taken at DOJ and the Department of State, as well as within 
several DHS components, the use of electronic redaction can allow for 
more timely responses to requests. Electronic redaction involves using 
software to eliminate nonreleasable data from electronic files. The 
software allows staff to quickly select text or images to be removed 
and annotate the text with the reasons (applicable exemptions) for the 
redactions. Manual redaction is more labor-intensive, typically 
involving photocopying or scanning a document after removing 
nonreleasable information by physically cutting, covering, or marking 
each page. 

Officials at DOJ and the Department of State reported that electronic 
redaction had led to improvements in the efficiency of their operations 
for processing information requests. FBI officials stated that 
electronic redaction had enabled the agency to significantly reduce 
staff while doubling productivity. Since 2002, the use of automation, 
including electronic redaction, has allowed the FBI to reduce staff 
levels from 630 to 230 employees, while reducing its number of pending 
requests from 2,500 to 1,800. Also, the rate of processing by 
individual staff was reported to have increased from 500 pages to 1,000 
pages per month. Likewise, Bureau of Prisons officials estimated that 
electronic redaction had reduced redaction time by 10 percent. The 
State Department's Director of Information Programs and Services 
likewise credited electronic redaction with improving efficiency and 
also noted that it resulted in a more professional product. 

Officials from several DHS components also reported having improved the 
efficiency or quality of their request processing by adopting 
electronic redaction: 

* CBP officials stated that since November 25, 2008, all of the 
permanent FOIA staff in the central office have used electronic 
redaction software to process records. They estimated that 90 to 95 
percent of records are redacted electronically. 

* USCIS officials reported that they use electronic redaction 
exclusively. A senior official estimated that, since adopting 
electronic redaction in 1998, the agency had significantly increased 
the efficiency of the its redaction process by eliminating the need to 
manually cut or mark records. 

* ICE's FOIA Officer stated that electronic redaction had resulted in 
significant time-savings over previous manual redaction processes. 

* According to USSS officials, approximately 70 to 75 percent of the 
records they process are redacted electronically. USSS officials credit 
electronic redaction with increasing productivity, reducing response 
time frames, and improving customer service. The remaining 25 to 30 
percent of USSS records are processed manually because of security 
requirements prohibiting the electronic redaction of classified 
records. 

* FEMA officials reported that they use electronic redaction to respond 
to approximately 90 percent of their requests. FEMA officials stated 
that implementing electronic redaction has enabled faster processing 
and a more professional and consistent product for requesters. FEMA 
still manually processes 10 percent of its records, either because the 
records are classified or because they have already been partially 
manually redacted. 

In contrast, the Coast Guard and TSA do not use electronic redaction 
when responding to the majority of their requests: 

* Coast Guard officials estimated that 7 percent of their FOIA staff 
have access to electronic redaction software, and approximately 70 
percent of the records processed by those with access are redacted 
electronically. Nevertheless, Coast Guard officials stated that 
electronic redaction had reduced processing time for large volume 
records and reduced the likelihood of improperly releasing information. 
Coast Guard officials added that funding had been requested for an 
electronic system located at all major FOIA processing centers which 
would enable online redactions. 

* Although all of TSA's FOIA staff members have access to electronic 
redaction software, only 10 percent of records are redacted 
electronically. Agency officials stated that TSA had been unable to 
adopt electronic redaction more broadly because of difficulties 
integrating the redaction software with TSA's file sharing application. 
The officials added that TSA is considering other software solutions 
that might allow broader adoption of electronic redaction. 

By more broadly adopting electronic redaction, the Coast Guard and TSA 
have opportunities to improve the efficiency of their operations. 

Conclusions: 

While DHS has made advances in ensuring compliance and oversight among 
its components, such as developing a departmentwide handbook and 
monitoring monthly data processing statistics, opportunities exist for 
further improvements. Practices in place at DOJ and the Department of 
State, and within a number of DHS's own component agencies, have 
demonstrated that a variety of enhancements are possible. However, 
these key practices have not yet been implemented consistently across 
the department. Such practices include monitoring and oversight of FOIA 
processing, component-specific training, providing online status 
information, releasing records in electronic format, and using 
electronic redaction. By consistently implementing these practices 
across all major departmental components, DHS is likely to be able to 
further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer 
service, and respond to FOIA requests in a more timely fashion. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the 
department's FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security take the following five actions: 

* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security 
Administration, and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing 
monitoring and oversight mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of 
overdue requests. 

* Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
and United States Secret Service to consider developing and 
implementing specialized training programs for their staff. 

* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security 
Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States Secret 
Service to consider providing requesters with an online mechanism to 
obtain information about the status of their requests. 

* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Transportation Security Administration, United States Secret Service, 
and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing a policy of 
primarily disseminating records to requesters in an electronic format 
when large numbers of pages are involved. 

* Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security 
Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the 
use of electronic redaction when processing requests. 

* Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ, and the Department of 
State for review and comment. In response, we received written comments 
from the Director of DHS's GAO/OIG Liaison Office, which are reprinted 
in appendix II. Officials from DOJ and the Department of State 
indicated that they had no comments on the draft report. 

In his written comments, the Director stated that DHS concurred with 
our assessment and recommendations and stated that the department will 
use the report to ensure improvement to its FOIA program in the future. 
In addition, DHS provided information on actions certain components are 
taking to address our recommendations. DHS also provided technical 
comments by e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and interested 
congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on 
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Gregory C. Wilshusen: 
Director, Information Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

[End of section] 

In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees 
on Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of the 
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) program. Our specific objectives were to determine (1) what key 
steps DHS has taken to improve its FOIA program, and (2) what 
opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost- 
effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. 

To determine the key steps DHS has taken to improve its program, we 
reviewed the goals contained in the DHS improvement plan, the reported 
progress made on these goals from the DHS annual FOIA reports, and 
documentation regarding initiatives aimed at improving departmental 
operations. To corroborate information obtained from the DHS Privacy 
Office about the department's actions and reported reductions in 
backlog, we obtained and analyzed supporting information from major 
departmental components by observing processing operations and 
obtaining documentation of improvement initiatives. We focused our work 
on the seven agency components that reported the largest number of 
pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007: U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration, 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United 
States Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. We obtained 
and analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of these 
components to assess DHS's performance. We also conducted site visits 
at ICE and USCIS, which account for the majority of requests processed 
at DHS, to analyze information regarding their processes and the 
implementation of improvement initiatives. Further, we interviewed DHS 
officials regarding the impact of organizational, technological, and 
managerial actions on achieving departmental improvement plan goals. 

To determine what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and 
cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department, we 
reviewed DHS-specific FOIA policies and procedures, including 
documentation regarding program structure, processes, and resources, to 
determine what practices were in place throughout the department. We 
also reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance aimed at improving FOIA 
operations across the government, including Executive Order 13392, the 
Department of Justice's (DOJ) guidance on implementing Executive Order 
13392, and the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National 
Government Act of 2007. We then reviewed similar documentation from DOJ 
and the Department of State--two agencies with types of information 
similar to DHS--and compared their programs to DHS operations to 
identify key practices that could be implemented more widely in DHS to 
make improvements in efficiency and customer service. Specifically, 
within DOJ, we analyzed key practices of FOIA programs at the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office 
for Immigration Review, and the Executive Office for United States 
Attorneys--the four components that reported the largest number of 
pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007--by discussing practices 
with officials, analyzing documentation, and observing processing 
activities firsthand to determine the impact they had on program 
efficiency. To supplement information on key practices obtained from 
DOJ and the Department of State, we analyzed documentation and 
interviewed officials from each of the seven major component agencies 
within DHS to determine which processes and improvement initiatives 
they had implemented and the extent to which these actions had produced 
tangible benefits. For components that had not implemented key 
practices, we obtained and analyzed information about the reasons they 
had not done so. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to January 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

February 25, 2009: 

Mr. Gregory C. Wilhausen: 
Director, Information Security Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Wilhausen: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) Draft Report GAO-09-260 entitled 
Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance its Program, 
but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness. 
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains 
grateful for all that the GAO has done to bring attention to issues 
within our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program and concurs with 
the findings of this report. The Department benefits from this 
oversight and will use it to ensure improvement to our FOIA program in 
the future. We appreciate the commitment the GAO has towards making the 
DHS FOIA program successful. 

Recommendations: 

GAO Recommendation #1: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and 
Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation 
Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States 
Secret Service to consider establishing monitoring and oversight 
mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of overdue requests. 

DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation 
and the Chief FOIA Officer plans to direct the FOIA Officers at the 
Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast Guard and 
United States Secret Service to consider establishing monitoring and 
oversight mechanisms to help reduce their respective backlogs of 
overdue requests. 

Components such as FEMA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are 
already taking steps to enhance this aspect of their program. The FEMA 
Disclosure Branch is developing a FOIA Scorecard that will be shared 
with FEMA leadership on a weekly basis in order to instill a sense of 
accountability. Furthermore, FEMA's Assistant Administrator for 
Management approved contract funding for a Backlog Reduction Team. This 
will be a performance-based contract in which FEMA's target is to 
eliminate the backlog within 7 months of award. 

At U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Executive Director, 
Commercial Targeting, Office of International Trade, directed the CBP 
FOIA Division Director to report the FOIA Division activity on a weekly 
basis, beginning in September 2008. That weekly report provides the 
Executive Director with the on-going progress of reducing the backlog 
of overdue requests. Corrective actions such as temporary duty 
assignments and shifting the focus of CBP FOIA Division priorities are 
taken in response to the weekly report because of the importance of 
timely responses to FOIA requests. This weekly reporting, along with 
monthly reporting to DHS, will continue, as will any adjustments that 
are necessary to reduce the backlog. The CBP FOIA Division will monitor 
the progress made on reducing the existing backlog to work toward the 
goal of eliminating it in the summer of 2009. 

GAO Recommendation #2: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and United States Secret Service to 
consider developing and implementing specialized training programs for 
their staff. 

DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation 
and has begun addressing the issue. The Disclosure Branch at FEMA, for 
example, has tailored the U.S. Department of Justice training to the 
specific FOIA exemptions utilized most frequently within FEMA. 
Furthermore, the FEMA Disclosure Branch is in the process of developing 
a component-specific training to be utilized with the incoming 
contractor support as well as the program office points of contact. The 
Chief FOIA Officer will direct the FOIA Officer at the United States 
Secret Service to consider augmenting existing training programs to 
provide specialized training opportunities for their staff. 

GAO Recommendation #3: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and 
Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation 
Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States 
Secret Service to consider providing requesters with an online 
mechanism to obtain information about the status of their requests. 

DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation. 
The DHS Privacy Office recommended component FOIA offices follow USCIS' 
lead in this arena in June 2008. Two components, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE), for example, have already implemented online status-check 
mechanisms for requesters. Several other components, including Customs 
and Border Protection are currently assessing the feasibility of 
implementing this type of feature. The Chief FOIA Officer plans to 
direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
Transportation Security Administration. United States Coast Guard and 
United States Secret Service to consider providing requesters with an 
online status check tool. 

GAO Recommendation #4: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and 
Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, United 
States Secret Service and United States Coast Guard to consider 
establishing a policy of primarily disseminating records to requesters 
in an electronic format when large numbers of pages are involved. 

DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation 
and the Chief FOIA Officer will direct the FOIA Officers at Customs and 
Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, United 
States Secret Service and United States Coast Guard to consider 
establishing a policy of primarily disseminating records to requesters 
in an electronic format when large numbers of pages are involved. 

GAO Recommendation #5: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation 
Security Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider 
expanding the use of electronic redaction when processing requests. 

DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation 
and plans to direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security 
Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the 
use of electronic redaction when processing requests. 

We thank you for considering our comments on these very important 
issues. We look forward to working with the GAO on future Homeland 
Security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Gregory C. Wilshusen, (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this 
report were made by John de Ferrari, Assistant Director; Marisol Cruz; 
Richard J. Hagerman; and Lee McCracken. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

[2] Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information 
(Washington, D.C., Dec. 14, 2005). 

[3] This time may be extended by no more than 10 days in "unusual 
circumstances," such as when requests involve a voluminous amount of 
records or require consultation with another agency. The time limit 
refers to the period for the agency to make a determination whether to 
comply with the request. The requester is to be "immediately" notified 
of the determination, the rationale, and of appeal rights for adverse 
determinations. The recent OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110- 
175) has addressed when the 20-day period commences and the 
circumstances under which the period can be suspended (or "tolled"). 

[4] The act has been amended several times. 

[5] There are also FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held 
by law enforcement agencies. 

[6] "Backlog requests" refer to FOIA requests to which an agency fails 
to respond within the statutory time limit. Backlog requests are 
distinct from the "pending cases" that are reported in the annual 
reports. The latter are FOIA cases that remain open at the end of the 
reporting period. In reports GAO issued before the President issued 
Executive Order 13392, GAO used the term "backlog" to refer to these 
pending cases. 

[7] Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation 
Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 2006). See [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm]. 

[8] The template for the backlog reduction goals was amended in October 
2007. Department of Justice, Modified Templates to Use When Submitting 
Backlog Reduction Goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost18.htm]. 

[9] Fees may be waived when disclosure of the information requested is 
determined to be in the public interest because it is likely to 
contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or 
activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial 
interest of the requester. 

[10] The Chief Privacy Officer for DHS serves as the Chief FOIA Officer 
for the department and has agencywide policy responsibility for 
efficient and appropriate FOIA compliance. 

[11] For more information on A-Files, see GAO, Immigration Benefits: 
Additional Efforts Needed to Help Ensure Alien Files Are Located when 
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-85] (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 27, 2006). 

[12] Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation 
Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 2006). See [hyperlink 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: