Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic
Freedom of Information Act Amendments (Letter Report, 03/16/2001,
GAO/GAO-01-378).

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, known as e-FOIA,
require federal agencies to make certain types of information available
for public inspection. GAO reviewed 25 federal agencies and found that
they have implemented many of the e-FOIA provisions. However, agencies
have not made all required documents electronically available.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies have
implemented reporting provisions required by e-FOIA, including annual
workload reports. While these reports provide a good overview of FOIA
activities across the government, data quality issues limit their
usefulness.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-378
     TITLE:  Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
	     Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments
      DATE:  03/16/2001
   SUBJECT:  Freedom of information
	     Electronic publications
	     Government information dissemination
	     Electronic government
	     Reporting requirements

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-378

A

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2001 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Amendments

GAO- 01- 378

Lett er

March 16, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson The Honorable Patrick Leahy
United States Senate

The Honorable Stephen Horn Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

On December 19, 2000, we briefed your offices on our review of the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, known as e- FOIA. As you
know, the Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make
certain types of information available for public inspection. e- FOIA,

among other things, was intended to improve agency responsiveness and
provide for greater public access to government information electronically.
In response to your request, we reviewed the progress made at 25 major

federal departments and agencies in implementing the e- FOIA amendments.

In brief, we found that agencies have implemented many of the e- FOIA
provisions. All 25 agencies we reviewed have established electronic reading
rooms. However, agencies have not made all required documents electronically
available. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies
have implemented reporting provisions required by e- FOIA, including annual
workload reports. While these reports provide a good overview of FOIA
activities across the government, data quality issues limit their
usefulness.

This report officially transmits the results of our work and recommendations
to assist the Department of Justice in providing better oversight of federal
agencies' implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. OMB and
Justice's co- directors of the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP)
provided oral comments on the draft briefing slides. They agreed with the
information provided and OIP plans to

implement the recommendations. The briefing slides, as amended, are
reprinted as appendix I. 1

Recommendations for To improve the public's access to government records and
information, as

Executive Action well as to enhance the usefulness of the information
contained in agencies' annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the Attorney
General direct Justice's Office of Information and Privacy to

? encourage agencies to make all required material electronically available,
and ? improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing

guidance that addresses the data quality issues we identified and (2)
reviewing agencies' report data for completeness and consistency.

We are sending copies of this report to Janice D. Schakowsky, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives. In addition, we are providing copies to the
Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Director, Office of Management and

Budget, and the Honorable John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General. This report is
also available on our home page at www. gao. gov. If you have any questions
on matters discussed in this report, please contact me at

(202) 512- 6240 or by e- mail at koontzl@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this
assignment were Michael P. Fruitman, M. Yvonne Sanchez, and Kevin M. Tansey.

Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues

1 Changes were minimal and do not affect the overall content.

December 19, 2000, Briefing on

Appendi x I

Implementation of e- FOIA Amendments Implementation of the 1996 Electronic
Freedom of Information Act Amendments

Briefing to the Staffs of Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Patrick Leahy,

and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology,

Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives

December 19, 2000

Overview

Objective, Scope, and Methodology ? Background ? Overview of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Process ? Progress on the Implementation of the
Electronic FOIA

Amendments (e- FOIA) ? Use of Electronic Reading Rooms ? 20- Day
Determination Period ? Use of Multi- Track and Expedited Processing ?
Implementation of Reporting Provisions ? Conclusions ? Recommendations ?
Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations ? Appendix II: Detailed Data from 25
Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports

2

Objective, Scope, and Methodology Objective:

To review the progress made in implementing e- FOIA amendments at 25 major
federal departments and agencies

Scope:

Reviewed e- FOIA implementation regarding the

? use of electronic reading rooms for required material and public
availability of reference material for requesting records or information

? 20- day period for determining whether to comply with requests, and
negotiation of scope with requester

? use of multi- track and expedited processing for improving agency
responsiveness

? reporting provisions specific to the Department of Justice and all other
federal agencies

3

Objective, Scope, and Methodology Methodology:

? Conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, from June through October 2000

? Interviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Justice officials
about their efforts to guide agencies' e- FOIA implementation

? Interviewed officials of eight agencies about their FOIA processes and
their experiences in implementing e- FOIA; these agencies were selected
because six received the largest volume of requests and two have
longstanding reported problems with backlogged requests

? Met with representatives of a few nonprofit and private organizations --
identified by your offices-- that are interested in FOIA issues

4

Objective, Scope, and Methodology Methodology (continued):

? Selected the 24 major agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers
Act, plus the CIA, which together handle 97% of FOIA requests
governmentwide; for each agency, we reviewed:

? FY99 FOIA annual report data for aggregated and agencycomparative
information; we did not independently verify the data

? main Internet and FOIA web sites for electronic availability of documents;
our review is neither representative of the entire agency nor a
determination of compliance because

? we did not check component- level FOIA web sites

? we could not determine if all applicable documents were posted

? Requested the 25 agencies to verify the results of our Internet review;
92% responded

5

Background History of FOIA and 1996 e- FOIA Amendments

? FOIA was the first law to establish a legal right of access to government
information, subject to certain statutory exemptions

? Enacted in 1966, and amended in 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996

? Through e- FOIA, Congress recognized problems with agency responsiveness
and tried to encourage improvements by

? providing requesters with an opportunity to limit the scope of their
requests to obtain faster processing

? authorizing agencies to implement multi- track processing of requests,
giving them flexibility to respond to relatively simple requests more
quickly

? requiring agencies to implement expedited processing for requests
determined to meet criteria for “compelling need”

6

Background History of FOIA and 1996 e- FOIA Amendments (continued)

? e- FOIA also encouraged on- line, public access to government information
through the use of electronic reading rooms by

? making categories of records available in electronic form( s), such as
agency final opinions, policy statements/ interpretations, administrative
staff manuals, frequently requested records, and an index of frequently
requested records

? making agencies' annual FOIA reports electronically available

? e- FOIA provided for the public availability of FOIA- related information,
specifically

? FOIA guidance, including information on multi- track processing, expedited
processing, and fee schedules

? reference materials/ handbooks on requesting records or information,
including an index and description of major information systems and a
description of record locator systems

7

Background Roles of OMB and Justice

? OMB officials have coordinated with Justice to provide guidance and
direction regarding FOIA, with Justice acting as the main point of contact
for agencies

? In 1998, OMB issued guidance on developing a handbook for individuals
seeking access to public information and on the Government Information
Locator Service (GILS) 1

? Within Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) has primary
responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal agencies on
FOIA issues

1 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 directed the establishment of GILS to
help the public locate and access information throughout the federal
government. GILS is a decentralized collection of agency- based

8 information locators using technology to direct users to relevant
information resources.

Overview of the FOIA Process

? In FY99, 25 agencies processed about 1.9 million FOIA requests, providing
records in full for 82%; 23 agencies reported that 1.6 million requests were
processed with median times of 20 days or fewer, while 140,000 were
processed with medians over 20 days 1

? Various factors determine the workflow, fees, and time needed to process a
FOIA request, such as

? amount and type of information requested and where in the organization the
responsive records would likely be found

? category of requester (i. e., commercial, educational)

? completeness of the request

? In responding to requests, FOIA offices interact with several external
entities-- the requester, the office( s) responsible for providing the
responsive records, and other federal agencies that send and receive FOIA
referrals 1 Based on agencies' FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999
(self- reported data); processing data for about 145,000 requests were not
included due to either incomplete (for 2 agencies) or inconsistently
reported data.

9

Overview of the FOIA Process Generic FOIA Process

Agency Process Request Letter

Retrieve Records

? log in “perfected” FOIA request a

? search for responsive records

Receives

? create case file

? request records

Request from

? scope request

? review responsive records

Requester

? generate initial response

? image records (if applicable) (e. g., acknowledgment letter)

Prepare Records for Release Approve Release of Records

Agency

? make redactions

? supervisory review of redacted

Releases

? apply exemption codes records

? calculate fees

? generate response

Records to

? approve release

Requester

Note: At any point in the process, an agency may refer a request to another
agency for processing or consultation. a A FOIA request that adequately
describes the records sought, that has been received by the FOIA office of
the agency/ component in possession of the records, and for which there is
no remaining question about fees.

10

Overview of the FOIA Process Retrieval of Records and Line- by- Line Review

Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that processing complex
FOIA requests is labor- intensive because

? FOIA offices, as a rule, are not the owners of the responsive records and
are dependent on other units to search for and provide the requested
information-- generally not a high priority for them

? searching for and retrieving responsive records often takes a significant
amount of effort, especially when responding to broad (e. g., agencywide)
requests

? some requests involve hundreds or thousands of pages that require line-
by- line review to ensure that the proper legal exemptions are applied

11

Overview of the FOIA Process Size and Content of Records Affects Disposition
of Requests, Which Varies Across Agencies

? Every request is different-- the type, size, and content of the responsive
records may require significant processing time

? Examples of varying effects on disposition of requests:

? for 93% of its requests, USDA provided records in full, generally because
they were requests for individuals' own records, which require less review
for exemptions; of its 80,000 requests processed, exemptions were taken
2,727 times, 55% for privacyrelated reasons

? for 28% of its requests, NSF provided records in full; of its 169 requests
processed, exemptions were taken 118 times, 71% for privacy- related reasons

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 12

AID CIA

USDA DOC

DOD ED

DOE HHS

HUD DOI

DOJ DOL

State

Overview of the FOIA Process Disposition of Processed DOT

Treas

Requests, by Agency

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

0% Grants Partial Grants Denials Not Disclosed for Other Reasons Note: HUD
reported a single total for denials and partial grants

FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 13 VA

EPA FEMA

GSA NASA

NSF NRC

Source: OPM SBA

SSA

Overview of the FOIA Process Need for Additional Staff Cited as a Barrier in
Implementing e- FOIA

? Officials at seven of the eight agencies-- and representatives of
nonprofit and private organizations-- interviewed said agencies need more
staff to improve their responsiveness to FOIA requests and decrease their
number of pending requests

? Officials at three agencies cited the lack of available people with the
knowledge and experience to review and redact classified records, due in
part to “special searches” (e. g., the Nazi War Crimes
Disclosure Act)

? According to FBI officials, over the past 4 years, the FBI has reduced its
backlog of pending requests from about 18,000 to 4,000, primarily due to its
staffing increase

? Echoing a 1993 Attorney General memo to agency heads, OIP officials see a
lack of funds and other resources as the greatest barrier to more effective
e- FOIA implementation

14

Overview of FOIA Process Use of IT Tools in Processing Requests

? Agencies are increasingly looking at automated FOIA processing to enhance
the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of their operations

? Capabilities include:

? Scanning and Imaging: scanning and converting paper documents to
electronic images or text; once converted, information can be searched and
modified electronically at a computer workstation

? Workflow: creating and tracking cases, routing information throughout an
office, and collecting and reporting workload data

? Document Management: storing, redacting, and archiving responsive records

? At least 8 of the 25 agencies and/ or their components use FOIA
application software

15

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms

? In determining the electronic or public availability of documents, we
categorized the results of our Internet review as:

? available -- found the required material

? partially available -- found a portion of the required material

? not found -- did not find any of the required material

? For 16 agencies we found FOIA guidance on agency- specific processes and
fees, while for the remaining 9 we found material for at least 2 of the 4
areas (p. 17)

? For 15 agencies we found documents for all required categories of records,
while for the remaining 10 we found documents for at least 3 of the 6
required categories (p. 18)

? For 12 agencies we found reference material addressing all 4 areas
specified by e- FOIA, 6 addressed 2 to 3 areas, and the remaining 7 only
addressed 1 area (p. 19)

16

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Available FOIA Guidance

= Available

= Partially available = Not found n/ a = Not applicable; agency uses single-
track process 17

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Electronic Availability of Required
Documents

= Available

= Partially available = Not found n/ a = Not applicable 18

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Public Availability of Reference Material

= Available

= Partially available = Not found 19

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Web Page Features Used to Facilitate Public
Access

? FOIA web page (all 25 agencies)

? FOIA web page link on agency's home page (19)

? List of FOIA contacts or links to FOIA offices (16 of the 17 agencies with
multiple FOIA offices)

? Programmatic information on obtaining public services (25)

? Links from agency web pages to other organizational units (23)

? Web site search feature (24)

? Ability to submit FOIA requests electronically (13)

Note: Justice established a feature in its newsletter called “Web Site
Watch” that encourages the development of agency Internet sites for
FOIA purposes. According to Justice officials, the use of e- mail and the
Internet for submitting requests electronically will increase in the future,
as agencies become more technically sophisticated.

20

Use of Electronic Reading Rooms Internet Provides Vehicle for Making
Information Available to the Public

? Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they

? are continuing to improve their electronic reading rooms

? use the Internet to provide information to the public well beyond what e-
FOIA requires, which they hope will decrease the number of FOIA requests

? OMB officials also said agencies are making a lot more information
available on the Internet beyond e- FOIA (e. g., the FirstGov initiative 1 )

? Officials at six of the eight agencies stated that while more information
is available on the Internet, the public may be generating more FOIA
requests or more complex ones because

? individuals are learning more about the Internet and government services

? highly publicized topics in the media generate a lot of attention for
federal web sites 1 FirstGov is a portal designed to provide a centralized
location to find information from local, state, and federal government
agency web sites.

21

20- Day Determination Period Agencies Consider Requirement Impractical

? FOIA requires agencies to (1) determine within 20 working days whether to
fulfill requests and immediately notify requesters, and (2) make releasable
records promptly available

? Despite the implication of a two- step process in the statutory language,
Justice and other agency officials said that, in most cases, agencies make
the determination and notify the requester concurrent with their final
response to the FOIA request

? Officials at seven of the eight agencies stated that the 20- day
requirement was impractical because

? this period has often expired before agencies have retrieved the records
needed, or are in a position to make a determination 1

? it would not be cost- effective to issue determination letters separate
from final responses in all required cases 1 For example, CIA acknowledgment
letters cite the agency's backlog and include language that states (in case
the requester chooses not to wait for responsive records), “... Since
we cannot respond within the 20

22

working days stipulated by the Act, you have the right to consider this as a
denial and may appeal....”

20- Day Determination Period Agencies' Median Processing Time

? Justice officials said that, as a practical matter, they consider the e-
FOIA provision to report data on median processing days the basis for
measuring compliance with the 20- day requirement

? While we have concerns regarding the data reliability of agencies' FY99
FOIA annual report, the best available data on median processing times
indicate that for 19 agencies

? 79% of requests were processed on a single- track system with medians
ranging from 6 to 53 days 1

? 11% were processed as simple requests with medians ranging from 7 to 48
days

? 8% were processed as complex requests with medians ranging from 17 to 308
days

? 2% were processed as expedited requests with medians ranging from 2 to 168
days 1 A single- track system processes all requests on a first- in, first-
out basis (FIFO); a multi- track processing system categorizes them in 2 or
more tracks (e. g., simple and complex), and then processes them on a FIFO
basis.

23

Requests Processed 1

2 6

7 8

10 11

12 13

14

20- Day Determination Period Distribution of Requests Processed by Median
Days

1,117,898 a

130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000

90, 000 80, 000 70, 000

15 16

17 19

20 21

25 26

28 29

30 38

39 45

60, 000 50, 000 40, 000 30, 000 20, 000 10, 000

0 89% of requests

Median Days Note: Except for the end points (1 and 2,337), only medians with
over 1,000 requests are included in the graph; data from 23 agencies a
Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 24
53

66 104

187 228

308 2,337

20- Day Determination Period Discussion of Scope Has Improved Responsiveness

? Officials of all eight agencies interviewed stated that they contacted
requesters, as needed, about limiting the scope of their requests to improve
responsiveness when the 20- day period could not be met

? Overall, they saw this e- FOIA provision as beneficial

? Officials cited examples of individuals who were not aware of the extent
of records and associated fees involved in their requests

? For example, to deal with growing backlogs of requests, in 1997 the FBI
implemented a “negotiation team” to communicate and negotiate
with FOIA requesters of voluminous records

25

Use of Multi- Track and Expedited Processing

? Multi- track processing is an agency- optional system in which simple
requests requiring relatively minimal review are placed on one processing
track, and more voluminous and complex requests are placed on one or more
other tracks; expedited processing

involves an agency decision to expedite the handling of a request when a
requester has shown an exceptional need or urgency for the records that
warrants prioritization over earlier requests

? 18 agencies reported data for multi- track processing and all 25 agencies
reported data for expedited processing 1

? Officials at seven of the eight agencies interviewed said the multitrack
provision has been helpful, although two of the seven said it has produced
only marginal gains

? Officials of all eight agencies said they consider requests for expedited
processing, but this is granted in few cases 1 FOIA annual reports for
fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data).

26

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Justice's Office of Information and
Privacy (OIP)

Justice implemented provisions in e- FOIA that direct the U. S. Attorney
General to

? develop, in consultation with OMB, reporting and performance guidelines
for agencies' FOIA annual reports

? make these annual reports available from a single electronic access point

? submit a Justice annual report to include 1) a list of FOIA court cases,
exemptions involved, disposition of

each case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed 2) a description of
activities undertaken by Justice to encourage

agency compliance 27

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Justice's Office of Information and
Privacy (OIP) (continued)

Justice reported the following activities, primarily through OIP, for 1999:

? provided about 3, 000 responses to requests for assistance

? issued policy guidance

? distributed a quarterly newsletter to about 5,500 subscribers

? developed research and reference materials, such as the Freedom of
Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview

? provided about 180 training presentations

? briefed individuals interested in FOIA operations, such as representatives
of foreign governments

? provided responses to congressional and public inquiries Officials at all
eight agencies interviewed provided positive feedback about the support they
received from OIP

28

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Reporting Inconsistencies and Data
Quality Problems Limit Usefulness of FY99 Annual Report Data

? According to OIP officials, they frequently provide guidance in response
to questions from agencies on preparation of their annual reports, and
receive these reports, but do not review them for content or accuracy

? e- FOIA authorizes Justice to “establish additional requirements for
such reports as the Attorney General determines may be useful.”

? While we did not perform a full validation of the agencies' annual reports
to determine their accuracy, we did identify a number of data deficiencies
in preparing aggregated and agency- comparative information

29

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Examples of Reporting Inconsistencies
and Data Quality Problems

? Unclear criteria for defining a FOIA request: Of the three federal
agencies that deliver health care services, VA counted first- party requests
for medical records as FOIA requests in FY99, resulting in a 447% increase;
in contrast, HHS only counted them as Privacy Act requests, and DOD was
unable to verify if this type of request was properly counted

? Different ways of counting requests: Officials of at least three
components within Justice stated that they counted each
“subject”

on whom information was requested as a separate request, while those at the
other seven agencies interviewed said they counted each request letter as
one request

30

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Reporting Inconsistencies in
“Compliance with Time Limits” Section Further Limit Use of
Agency Data

In addition to data discrepancies we noted, 12 agencies reported certain
limitations associated with their data in the section of the FOIA annual
report that addressed compliance with time limits; for example:

? Understated “processing” data: Four agencies have incomplete
data because they did not report median days by type of multi- track process
for either some or all of their components

? Overstated “processing” data: EPA reported action office
assignments 1 rather than requests processed, which overstated its count by
142% (a difference of 23,707)

? Inconsistent ways of reporting median processing time: OIP guidance states
that, when practical, agencies should report the median processing time in
working days, but only 5 of the 25 agencies reported doing so; 5 reported by
calendar days, 1 reported by both, and 14 did not state a basis; OIP
officials said it should be assumed these 14 agencies reported in working
days 1 EPA defines action office assignments as “The EPA component
office( s) where the FOI office assigns a request for action and direct
reply to the requester. Many initial requests are assigned to multiple
components

31 for separate responses/ action.”

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data for Requests
Received, Processed, and Pending

? The 25 agencies received 2,000,000

119% more requests in FY99 than in the previous year 1,500,000

? VA accounted for about 90% 1,000,000

of the increase in FY99 for requests received and

500,000 processed due to a change

in reporting of first- party 0

medical record requests Received Processed Pending

? For FY99, five agencies-- VA, FY98 869,576 863,849 125,926

Justice, SSA, DOD, and FY99 1,908,083 1,883,310 151,141

USDA-- received 89% of the total requests received Note: FY99 reported data
are used for “requests pending at the end of the FY98” because
of discrepancies noted between FY98 and FY99 annual reports

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (self- reported
data). 32

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on the
Disposition of Processed Requests

? Grants are agency decisions to Partial Grants disclose all records in full

4% Denials

? Partial grants are agency decisions 2%

to disclose a record in part, deleting information determined to

Not Disclosed for be exempt under one or more Other Reasons

exemptions, or a decision to 12%

disclose some records in their entirety, but to withhold others in whole or
in part

? Denials are agency decisions not to release any part of the

Grants requested record( s) because all

82% information in the record( s) is determined to be exempt under one or
more exemptions

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 33

Percentage

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Statutory
Exemptions Used

30 22%

21% 20

14% 9%

8% 10

6% 7% 5%

3% 3% 0.1%

1% 0.1% 0.02% 0

1 2 3 45 67a 7b7c7d 7e7f8 9 Exemptions Exemptions are for matters that are
(1) to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy
(7) compiled for law enforcement purposes that: (2) related to the internal
personnel rules and practices of an agency (7a) interfere with enforcement
proceedings (3) specially exempted from disclosure by statute (7b) deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication (4) trade
secrets and commercial or financial information (7c) constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5) inter- or intra- agency memos
or letters not available by law (7d) disclose the identity of a confidential
source (6) personnel and medical files which constitute an unwarranted (7e)
risk circumvention of the law

invasion of privacy (7f) endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual (8) for the regulation of financial institutions Note: HHS and
Treas/ IRS “7” exemptions included under “7a” (9)
geological and geophysical information concerning wells

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 34

Percentage

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Other Reasons
Records Were Not Disclosed

40 33%

27% 30

20 11%

8% 6% 10 5% 4% 4%

2% 0

No Other Referred Not

Request Duplicate

Not An Not

Fee Record

Proper Withdrawn

Request Agency

Reasonably Related

Request Record

Described Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported
data).

35

Implementation of Reporting Provisions Aggregated FY99 Data on Disposition
of Appeals

? Appeal rates for the 25 Not Disclosed agencies ranged from 0. 2%

for Other for VA to 13% for Interior,

Reasons Upheld

with an overall agency 48%

32% average of 4%

? About 10, 400 appeals were processed, which is 3% of the total requests
processed, excluding requests that were fully granted

Reversed Partially 5%

Reversed 15%

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 36

Conclusions

Many e- FOIA provisions have been implemented:

? Agencies use electronic reading rooms to provide access to documents and
reference materials; however, not all required documents were electronically
available as of October 2000

? Agency officials interviewed consider the 20- day period for determining
whether to comply with requests impractical, but view discussions with
requesters as beneficial

? Of the 1. 9 million requests processed in FY99, 1.7 million requests (89%)
were processed with medians of 21 days or less

? Agencies have implemented multi- track and expedited processing

? Agencies' annual reports provide an overview of FOIA activities, but data
quality issues limit their usefulness

37

Recommendations

To improve the public's access to government records and information, as
well as to enhance the usefulness of the information contained in agencies'
annual FOIA reports, we recommend that the Attorney General direct Justice's
Office of Information and Privacy to

encourage agencies to make all required material electronically available,
and

improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing guidance
that addresses the data quality issues we

identified and (2) reviewing agencies' report data for completeness and

consistency. 38

Appendix I: Agency Abbreviations

AID Agency for International Development DOT Department of Transportation
CIA* Central Intelligence Agency Treas Department of the Treasury USDA*
Department of Agriculture VA* Department of Veterans Affairs DOC Department
of Commerce EPA Environmental Protection Agency DOD* Department of Defense
FEMA Federal Emergency Management ED Department of Education Agency DOE
Department of Energy GSA General Services Administration HHS* Department of
Health and Human Services NASA National Aeronautics and Space HUD Department
of Housing and Urban Administration

Development NSF National Science Foundation DOI Department of the Interior
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOJ* Department of Justice OPM Office of
Personnel Management DOL Department of Labor SBA Small Business
Administration State* Department of State SSA* Social Security
Administration

* We interviewed FOIA officials of these agencies 39

Requests Number of AID

25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports

CIA USDA

Appendix DOC DOD

II: Requests Received

1,151,326 a

250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000

50,000 0

ED c

d DOE HHS

b HUD a Actual value; bar scaled down to better illustrate the lower values

b HUD OIG data not included c DOI

DOJ change in reporting of first- party State

DOL record requests DOT

Tr eas VA

EPA FEMA

GSA Reflects a 447% increase over FY98 due to a medical d Reflects a 114%
increase in workload, primarily due to genealogy research by requesters

FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported NASA NSF

NRC OPM

SBA SSA

Source: data). 40

Number of Requests AID

CIA USDA

DOC DOD

ED DOE

HHS Pending FY99

41 HUD

DOI DOJ

DOL State

DOT Treas

VA EPA

FEMA GSA

NASA NSF

NRC

Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Pending Requests at End of
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999

35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000

5,000 0

Pending FY98 Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self-
reported data). OPM

SBA SSA

AID CIA

USDA DOC

DOD ED

DOE HHS

HUD DOI

DOJ DOL

State

Appendix II: 25 DOT

Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Proportion of Pending Requests to Total Workload

a b 100%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0% a “Total workload” is the total of processed and pending
requests

Pending Requests Processed Requests 42 Treas

VA EPA

FEMA GSA

NASA NSF

NRC OPM

b Includes FBI's proportion of 23% pending requests Source: FOIA annual
reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data).

SBA SSA

Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Median Days to Process Requests

350 300 250 200 150 100

Median Days 50

b, c AID

CIA USD

A DOC

DOD ED

DOE HUD

DOI DOL 0

a State Simple Complex Single- Track 20- day requirement

Notes:

? Data for six agencies are not shown above: HHS, Treasury, NASA, and SSA
because their processing time data were incomplete, and Justice and FEMA
because they reported component- by- component only, and not on an
agencywide basis

? Agencies reported median days in calendar days (AID, DOD, ED, State,
FEMA), working days (EPA, GSA, NASA, NSF, SBA), both calendar and working
days (DOT), or did not state a basis for reporting (CIA, USDA, DOC, DOE,
HUD, DOI, DOJ, DOL, VA, NSF, OPM, HHS, Treasury, SSA); OIP states that, when
practical, agencies should report the median in DOT

VA EPA

guidance working days a State reported that median days are based on the
dates that requests were received or acknowledgement letters sent, which in

some cases may include requests that are not yet “perfected”

b EPA counted requests by assignments rather than requests processed and
counted processing data under tracks labeled as "basic," "unusual," and
"exceptional;" we categorized unusual and exceptional requests as "complex"
c EPA's for data for GSA

NSF median 99% of its complex requests and 8

NRC days for "complex" is based on the 25 days reported excludes requests
processed with a median of 55 days Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal
year 1999 (self- reported data).

43 OPM

SBA

Median Days

FOIA AID CIA

USDA DOC

DOD ED

DOE HUD

DOI DOJ

DOL State

DOT Treas

VA

Agencies' FY99 EPA FEMA

GSA NASA

NSF

Appendix II: 25 NRC OPM

SBA

Reports Median Days Requests Were Pending at the End of the Fiscal Year

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

0 a b Note: HHS and SSA are not included because of incomplete data a
Includes FBI's reported median days of 252

b NRC data excludes 4 requests pending with a median of 198 days Source:
FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data).

44

Staff Number of Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports FOIA Staffing

1 ,200

Part- Time Full- Time

1 ,000 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0

a d c a AID CIA

USDA DOC

DOD ED

DOE HHS

0

c HUD b a Adjustment made for USDA, DOC, and NSF in reported part- time
work- years to reflect reported total work years

b DOE data reflect work DOI DOJ

DOL State

DOT Treas

VA EPA

FEMA GSA

NASA NSF

NRC OPM

SBA years reported; however, there is a discrepancy in the number reported
for “total work years” c HUD and GSA noted that data are
understated and do not adequately portray agency work- year investment

d Includes FBI's reported full- time staff of 671 Source: FOIA annual
reports for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data).

45 SSA

Costs FOIA Appendix II: 25 Agencies' FY99 FOIA Reports Total FOIA Costs

a b Note: GSA is not included because it did not provide cost data a DOE
reported a discrepancy of $654, 061 between processing and total costs; we
used processing costs

b Includes FBI's reported costs of $33 million Source: FOIA annual reports
for fiscal year 1999 (self- reported data). 46





!"

# #!

#$ "

%

Lett er (310311)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments United States General Accounting
Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Page 2 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Page 3 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Page 4 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 5 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 6 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 7 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 8 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 9 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 10 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 11 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 12 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 13 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 14 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 15 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 16 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 17 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 18 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 19 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 20 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 21 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 22 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 23 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 24 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 25 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 26 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 27 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 28 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 29 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 30 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 31 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 32 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 33 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 34 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 35 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 36 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 37 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 38 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 39 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 40 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 41 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 42 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 43 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 44 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 45 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 46 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 47 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 48 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Appendix I December 19, 2000, Briefing on Implementation of e- FOIA
Amendments

Page 49 GAO- 01- 378 e- FOIA Amendments

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact one: ? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm ? e-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***