Privacy Act: OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance  
(30-JUN-03, GAO-03-304).					 
                                                                 
The Privacy Act regulates how federal agencies may use the	 
personal information that individuals supply when obtaining	 
government services or fulfilling obligations--for example,	 
applying for a small business loan or paying taxes. GAO was asked
to review, among other things, agency compliance with the Privacy
Act and related guidance from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-304 					        
    ACCNO:   A07418						        
  TITLE:     Privacy Act: OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency     
Compliance							 
     DATE:   06/30/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal agencies					 
	     Privacy law					 
	     Right of privacy					 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Noncompliance					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-03-304

                                       A

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U. S. Senate

June 2003 PRIVACY ACT OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

GAO- 03- 304

Contents Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Most Agencies* Systems of Records Contain
Electronic Records 13 Agency Compliance with the Privacy Act and OMB
Guidance Is

Uneven 14 Agencies Maintain Personal Information outside the Privacy Act
in a

Limited Number of Information Systems 28 Conclusions 30 Recommendations
for Executive Action 31 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 35 Surveys 35 Privacy Act Forum 38
Presidential Privacy Initiative 39

Appendix II: Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results 40 Major Barriers to Improving Agency Compliance with the Privacy

Act and Actions That Could Address These Barriers 40 Adequacy of Privacy
Act Protection in Today*s Electronic

Environment 43 Need for Changes in the Privacy Act for Consistency with
the

Current Environment and Management Practices 44

Appendix III: OMB Guidance on Privacy 46

Appendix IV: Compliance with Privacy Act and Associated Guidance 48

Appendix V: Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance 51 OMB*s Overall
Assistance to Agencies Was Frequently Judged

*Moderately Effective* 51 OMB*s Written Guidance Was Frequently Judged
*Mostly Complete* 52

OMB*s Responses to Agency Questions Were Frequently Judged *Moderately
Timely* 53 OMB*s Assistance on Agencies* Federal Register Notices Was

Frequently Judged *Moderately Timely* 54

Appendix VI: Agency Resources and Structure Devoted to Implementation of
the Privacy Act 57

Appendix VII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 59 GAO
Comments 69

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74 GAO Contact 74
Staff Acknowledgments 74

Tables Table 1: Agencywide Compliance with Training Requirements 22 Table
2: Compliance with Exemption Requirements 24

Table 3: Respondents to Second Survey 36 Table 4: Responses to Agencywide
Practices Survey 48 Table 5: Responses to System of Records Survey 49

Figures Figure 1: Policies to Assess Need to Collect Personal Information
15 Figure 2: Agencies* Assessments of Security Safeguards 20 Figure 3:
Agencies* Means to Detect Unauthorized Access 21 Figure 4: Information
Systems Containing Personal Information

Not in a Privacy Act System of Records 28 Figure 5: Agency
Characterization of Overall Effectiveness of OMB

Assistance 51 Figure 6: Agency Characterization of Completeness of OMB*s

Written Guidance 52 Figure 7: Agency Characterization of Timeliness of
OMB*s

Response to Questions 53 Figure 8: Agency Characterization of Usefulness
of OMB*s

Response to Questions 54 Figure 9: Agency Characterization of Timeliness
of OMB*s

Assistance with Federal Register Notices 55 Figure 10: Agency
Characterization of Usefulness of OMB*s

Assistance with Federal Register Notices 56 Figure 11: Centralization of
Implementation of Privacy Act 58

Abbreviations

CIO chief information officer FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FISMA
Federal Information Security Management Act FOIA Freedom of Information
Act FTE full- time equivalent OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM
Office of Personnel Management SSA Social Security Administration SOR
system of records

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. However, 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.

Letter

June 30, 2003 The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Senator
Lieberman: Obtaining government services or fulfilling government
obligations* for example, applying for a small business loan or paying
taxes* often requires individuals to provide federal agencies with
detailed personal information about themselves and their spouses,
dependents, and parents. 1 To regul ate the federal government*s use of
this personal information, Congress passed

the Privacy Act of 1974. You asked us to evaluate the compliance of
federal agencies with the Privacy Act and other issues. Specifically, as
agreed with your office, our objectives were to determine

 key characteristics of systems of records 2 reported by agencies;  the
level of agency compliance with the Privacy Act and related OMB guidance;
and  the extent to which agencies report that they maintain personal

information that is not subject to the Privacy Act*s protections. 1 Under
the Privacy Act, personal information is all information associated with
an individual and includes both identifying information and nonidentifying
information. Identifying information, which can be used to locate or
identify an individual, includes name, aliases, social security number, E-
mail address, driver*s license identification number, and agencyassigned

case number. Nonidentifying personal information includes age, education,
finances, criminal history, physical attributes, and gender. 2 A system of
records is a collection of information about individuals under the control
of an

agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual
or by some identifying number, symbol, or other particular assigned to the
individual.

To address these objectives, we conducted three surveys at 25 departments
and agencies, which were selected to provide a cross section of large and
small agencies 3 that were likely to have different missions and

organizational structures and, perhaps, different approaches to
implementing the Privacy Act. (App. I identifies the 25 agencies.)
Response rates ranged from 76 to 100 percent. 4 To help verify the
accuracy of answers related to compliance with the Privacy Act, we
randomly selected a sample of agencies* responses to the surveys and asked
officials to provide documentation or additional narrative explanations to
support their answers for key compliance questions. The results of the
verification work gave us greater assurance about the accuracy of
agencies* survey

responses. We previously briefed your staff on the results of our surveys.
To better understand the results of our surveys, we invited the 25
agencies to send a representative (mostly Privacy Act officers) to a
meeting in February 2003 (also referred to as the *forum*), at which we
presented our survey results and asked the agency representatives for
their reactions and to identify barriers to compliance with the act. (A
summary of forum results is presented in app. II.)

Further details on our scope and methodology are provided in appendix I.
Our work was conducted from May 2001 to May 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

3 We use the term *agency* in this report to refer to executive
departments such as the Department of Justice as well as independent
agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

4 We used three surveys to obtain information on the following areas (see
app. I): the first addressed agencywide practices, and the second
addressed systems of records; these two surveys addressed characteristics
of systems of records and compliance with the act and related OMB
guidance. The third survey focused on information technology projects; for
these, we obtained information on systems containing personal information
not subject to the act*s protections. All percentage estimates in this
report have confidence intervals of

+-10 percentage points or less (unless otherwise noted) at the 95 percent
confidence level. In other words, if all the systems of records in our
population had been in the second survey, the chances are 95 out of 100
that the result obtained would not differ from our sample estimate by more
than +-10 percentage points.

Results in Brief Based on survey responses, a key characteristic of
agencies* 2,400 systems of records is that an estimated 70 percent of
systems contained electronic

records. Specifically, 12 percent were exclusively electronic records, 58
percent were a combination of paper and electronic, and 31 percent were
exclusively paper records. 5 In addition, we estimate that agencies
allowed individuals to access their personal information electronically
via the Internet in about 1 of every 10 systems of records. Other key
characteristics reflected the diversity of systems: for example, the
number of people whose personal information was maintained in the sampled
systems of records varied significantly, from 5 people to about 290
million, with a median of about 3,500. The number of systems per agency
also

varied significantly: from 1 to over 1, 000, with a median of 68. While
compliance with Privacy Act provisions and related OMB guidance was
generally high in many areas, according to agency reports, it was uneven
across the federal government* ranging from 100 percent to about 70
percent for the various provisions. For example, we estimate that for all
systems of records (100 percent), agencies issued the required rule that
explains to the public why they exempted the system of records from one

or more of the act*s privacy protections. In contrast, fewer agencies were
compliant with the provision that information should be complete,
accurate, relevant, and timely before it is disclosed to a nonfederal
organization; we estimate that agencies took steps to comply with this
requirement for 71 percent of systems of records. At the forum, agency
privacy officials acknowledged the uneven compliance but reported a

number of difficult implementation issues in a rapidly changing
environment. Of these issues, privacy officials gave most importance to
the need for further OMB leadership and guidance. Although agencies are
not generally dissatisfied with OMB*s guidance on the Privacy Act, they
made specific suggestions regarding areas in which additional guidance was

needed, such as the act*s application to electronic records. Besides these
gaps in guidance, additional implementation issues included the low agency
priority given to implementing the act and insufficient employee training
on the act. If these issues and the overall uneven compliance are

not addressed, the government will not be able to provide the public with
sufficient assurance that individual privacy rights are appropriately
protected.

5 Figures do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Agencies maintained personal information that was not subject to the
Privacy Act*s protections in an estimated 11 percent of 730 major
information systems in use during fiscal year 2002. Agencies reported that
this occurred in various circumstances, the most frequent being when
information was not retrieved by use of identifying information (e. g.,
name), but rather by other, nonidentifying information (e. g., name of a

company). Concerns have been raised regarding the scope of the Privacy
Act, whose coverage is limited to personal information that is retrieved
by a personal identifier. Our study results are relevant to one aspect of
this issue, as they provide an indication of the extent to which agencies
maintain personal information not subject to the act*s protections. A more
complete examination of this topic would require additional study. To
improve compliance and address issues reported by agencies, we are making
recommendations to the Director, OMB, which include directing

agencies to correct compliance deficiencies, monitoring agency compliance,
and reassessing OMB guidance. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Administrators of OMB*s Offices of Information and Regulatory Affairs and
of E- Government and Information Technology stated that the information in
the draft report does not support our conclusion that, without improved
compliance, the government cannot assure the public that individual
privacy rights are being protected. Specifically, the Administrators fault
what they characterize as a fundamental flaw in the draft report: our
treatment of the various provisions of the act as equally important in
protecting privacy. In addition, OMB disagrees with our recommendations,
stating that they are vague and nebulous.

We disagree with OMB*s assertion that our conclusion is not supported. We
continue to believe that, without improved compliance, the government
cannot adequately assure the public that all legislated individual privacy
rights are being protected. In enacting the Privacy Act, Congress
established a framework for ensuring that individuals* privacy is
protected. Accordingly, we based our conclusions on a comprehensive
analysis of agency compliance with a broad range of requirements contained
in the

act. With regard to our recommendations, the report contains considerable
detail including specific compliance results and agency suggestions for
improvements to OMB guidance. In addition, we believe that our
recommendations provide the appropriate level of detail needed for OMB to
address the issues from a governmentwide perspective. However, we
recognize that the compliance results in particular are provided in

aggregate form; we will be providing additional details to OMB to help it
in improving governmentwide compliance.

Background The Privacy Act of 1974 is the primary act that regulates the
federal government*s use of personal information. The Privacy Act places

limitations on agencies* collection, disclosure, and use of personal
information in systems of records. A system of records is a collection of
information about individuals under the control of an agency from which
information is actually retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other particular assigned to the
individual. The act does not apply when there is merely a capability or
potential for

retrieval by identifier, which is often the case with electronic records.
Among the major provisions of the Privacy Act are the following:
Collecting only necessary information. Agencies are to maintain personal
information about an individual only when it is relevant and necessary to
accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute
or executive order of the President. According to OMB guidance, the goal
of this provision is to reduce the amount of personal information that
agencies collect in order to reduce the risk of agencies* improperly using
personal information.

Providing public notice. Agencies are to publish a notice in the Federal
Register when establishing or revising a system of records. The notice is
to contain the name and location of the system, the categories of
individuals on whom records are maintained in the system, and each
*routine use* 6 of the records contained in the system.

Providing for informed consent. Agencies are to inform individuals whom it
asks to supply information of (1) the authority for soliciting the
information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or
voluntary, (2) the principal purposes for which the information is
intended

to be used, (3) the routine uses that may be made of the information, and
(4) the effects on the individual, if any, of not providing the
information.

6 Under the act, a routine use is a disclosure of personal information
outside the agency maintaining the information that the agency determines
is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.

Protecting against adverse determinations through maintaining accuracy of
personal information. Agencies are to maintain all records used in making
any determination about individuals with such accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness
to the individual.

Safeguarding information. Agencies are to establish appropriate
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security
and confidentiality of records and to protect against anticipated threats
or hazards to their security or integrity that could result in substantial
harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on
whom information is maintained.

Accounting for disclosures of records. Agencies are to keep an accounting
of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record, and the
name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made
(except for disclosures within the agency for official purposes or for
disclosures required under the Freedom of Information Act).

Training employees. Agencies are to instruct persons on the requirements
of the act if they are involved in the design, development, operation, or
maintenance of any system of records or in maintaining any record.

Providing notice of exemptions of systems of records. When an agency uses
the authority in the act to exempt a system of records from certain
provisions, the agency is to issue a rule explaining the reasons for

the exemption.

Providing for civil remedies and criminal penalties for violating the
rights granted by the Privacy Act. The act grants individuals the right of
access to agency records pertaining to themselves; the right to amend such
a record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete; and the
right to sue the government for violations of the act. There are civil
remedies and criminal penalties for agencies not affording individuals
these rights.

In 1988, Congress amended the Privacy Act through passage of the Computer
Matching and Privacy Protection Act, which established safeguards
regarding an agency*s use of Privacy Act records in performing certain
computerized matching programs. Under the act, a written computer matching
agreement is required for any computerized comparison of two or more
automated systems of records for the purposes

of determining the eligibility of applicants for assistance under federal
benefits programs or of recouping payments or delinquent debts under
federal benefits programs. Agreements are also required for any
computerized comparison of federal personnel or payroll systems.

Computer matching agreements must specify the purpose and legal authority
for conducting the match and how these matches will be performed. Agency
Data Integrity Boards are to approve matching

agreements and assess the costs and benefits of the match. (There are some
exceptions, such as not assessing costs and benefits where the match is
required by statute.)

OMB Is Responsible for Under the Privacy Act, OMB is responsible for
developing guidelines and

Guidance on Privacy regulations and providing *continuing assistance to
and oversight of*

agencies* implementation of the act. In 1975, OMB issued its initial
Privacy Act implementing guidance entitled Privacy Act Implementation:
Guidelines and Responsibilities. In addition, OMB Circular A- 130
(Management of Federal Information Resources) sets forth a number of
general policies concerning the protection of personal privacy by the
federal government:

 The individual*s right of privacy must be protected in federal
government information activities involving personal information.

 Agencies shall consider the effects of their actions on the privacy
rights of individuals and ensure that appropriate legal and technical
safeguards are implemented.

 Agencies shall limit the collection of information that identifies
individuals to that which is legally authorized and necessary for the
proper performance of agency functions.

 Agency heads shall periodically review (1) a random sample of agency
contracts for maintaining systems of records to ensure that contractors
are bound by the Privacy Act; (2) routine use disclosures associated with
each system of records to ensure that they are compatible with their
original purpose for collection; and (3) training practices to ensure that
employees are familiar with the Privacy Act and the agency*s implementing
regulation.

As of April 2003, OMB*s Web site, www. whitehouse. gov/ omb, also provides
links to documents characterized as *Privacy Guidance* and *Privacy
Reference Materials*

(http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ inforeg/ infopoltech. html). Those
documents include the initial Privacy Act guidance, memoranda about
privacy policies on federal Web sites, interagency sharing of personal
data, letters on agency use of Web *cookies.* 7 (See app. III.)

OMB officials stated that one OMB staff person is dedicated to Privacy Act
issues full time. In addition, according to that one staff person, several
other OMB staff also devote part of their time to this effort. The Privacy
Act staff position is located in the Information Policy and Technology
Branch within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. According
to OMB, the duties associated with this position include

 reviewing agencies* draft Federal Register notices and systems reports
for new and altered systems of records and computer matches;

 answering agencies* questions about how to implement the act, and
responding to questions from federal employees and the public about the
scope and application of the act;  monitoring court rulings involving the
Privacy Act;  developing written guidance to agencies on Privacy Act
implementation

issues and federal Internet privacy policy;  leading interagency work
groups on Privacy Act issues;  providing input to OMB*s positions on
legislation, rules, regulations, and

testimony that have privacy policy implications; and  participating in
interagency discussions and activities concerning other

privacy policy issues (consumer fraud/ identity theft, do- not- call
lists, medical privacy, financial privacy, etc.).

7 A cookie is a short string of text that is sent from a Web server to a
Web browser when the browser accesses a page. Certain types of cookies may
pose privacy risks because they may be used to track individuals* browsing
habits and keep track of viewed and downloaded

pages.

One body tasked with addressing federal governmentwide issues such as
privacy and security is the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council,
chaired by the Deputy Director for Management in OMB. Initially
established in 1996 by Executive Order 13011, the CIO Council was enacted
into law by the E- Government Act of 2002. 8 The council serves as the

principal interagency forum for improving practices in the management of
federal information resources. Among its functions are responsibilities to
develop policy recommendations for OMB, help coordinate multiagency

projects and other innovative initiatives, assist in standards
development, and work with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to
address hiring and training needs. 9 Previous Initiatives and

Concerns about implementation of the Privacy Act have arisen periodically
Studies Have Raised Privacy

since its passage. In 1983, for example, in a report summarizing 9 years
and Security Concerns

(1975* 1983) of congressional oversight of the act, the House Committee on
Government Reform (formerly called the Committee on Government Operations)
concluded that OMB had not pursued its responsibility to revise and update
its original guidance from 1975 and had not actively monitored agency
compliance with its guidance. 10 It stated *Interest in the Privacy Act at
[OMB] has diminished steadily since 1975. Each successive Administration
has shown less concern about Privacy Act oversight.*

8 Public Law 105- 277, Div. C, tit. XVII. 9 44 U. S. C. 3603, Public Law
107- 347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 10 House Report No. 98- 455.

A subsequent administration initiative addressed the difficulty of
assuring privacy in an increasingly electronic environment. In May 1998, a
presidential memorandum was issued stating that increases in agencies* use
of electronic records permit *this information to be used and analyzed in
ways that could diminish individual privacy in the absence of additional
safeguards.* Consequently, the heads of executive departments and

agencies were directed to review their Privacy Act systems of records
within 1 year, and OMB was directed, among other things, 11 to issue
instructions to agencies on conducting and reporting these reviews. In its
January 1999 instructions, OMB also asked agencies to identify areas where
they believe further OMB guidance was needed. 12

The resulting responses from 72 agencies highlighted a range of issues.
For example, in assessing their own compliance with the Privacy Act,
agencies (1) added 131 systems of records that previously had not been
properly identified, (2) revised 457 systems of records that were not up
to date, and (3) deleted 288 systems of records that were no longer
necessary. In

addition, agencies requested centralized, updated guidance, particularly
with regard to new technologies such as E- mail, Web sites, and electronic
records. Further, agencies suggested, for example, that OMB establish an
interagency taskforce on privacy. 11 The President also directed OMB to
summarize the results of the agency reviews. OMB officials stated that
they did not do so. However, the OMB official who is responsible for

overseeing the Privacy Act stated that the Presidential initiative did
result in OMB urging agencies to include privacy impact assessments when
preparing their budget Exhibit 300 submissions for information technology
purchases. She also stated that a similar requirement for privacy impact
assessments was subsequently enacted into law (P. L. 107347).

12 OMB Memorandum M- 99- 05 (Jan. 7, 1999).

In addition, over the past 3 years, we have issued reports that raised
concerns with the adequacy of selected OMB guidance. In September 2000, we
reported that OMB*s guidance to agencies on Web site privacy policies was
unclear in several respects and contained undefined language. We
recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on privacy policies for

agencies* Web sites. 13 In another report, issued in April 2001, we said
that OMB*s guidance on agencies* use of cookies on Web sites was
fragmented and did not provide clear direction. 14 We recommended that OMB
clarify its guidance. Although OMB officials stated that they planned to
address these recommendations, OMB had not yet implemented them as of May
2003.

We have also consistently reported that security of electronic information
in computer systems is a high- risk area for the government in general,
with potentially devastating consequences if it is not ensured. When
controls over the security of computer systems are not adequate, the
privacy of the personal information in those systems is exposed to
potential risks from unauthorized access or alteration. In April 2003, at
the request of Congress, we testified on our analysis of recent
information security audits and

evaluations at 24 major federal departments and agencies. 15 We reported
that although analyses of audit and evaluation reports for the 24 major
departments and agencies issued from October 2001 to October 2002
indicated some individual agency improvements, overall they continued to
highlight significant information security weaknesses that place a broad

array of federal operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and
disruption. We identified significant weaknesses in each of the 24
agencies. As in 2000 and 2001, weaknesses were most often identified in
control

areas for security program management and access controls. All 24 agencies
had weaknesses in security program management, which provides the
framework for ensuring that risks are understood and that effective
controls are selected and properly implemented.

We further testified that there are a number of important steps that the
administration and the agencies should take to ensure that information

13 Internet Privacy: Agencies* Efforts to Implement OMB*s Privacy Policy,
GAO/ GGD- 00- 191 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 5, 2000). 14 Internet Privacy:
Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of Cookies, GAO01- 424
(Washington, D. C.: Apr. 27, 2001). 15 Information Security: Progress
Made, but Challenges Remain to Protect Federal Systems and the Nation's
Critical Infrastructures, GAO- 03- 564T (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 8, 2003).

security receives appropriate attention and resources and that known
deficiencies are addressed. These steps include delineating the roles and
responsibilities of the numerous entities involved in federal information

security and related aspects of critical infrastructure protection;
providing more specific guidance on the controls agencies need to
implement; obtaining adequate technical expertise to select, implement,
and maintain controls to protect information systems; and allocating
sufficient agency resources for information security.

Although we continue to report significant weaknesses that place federal
operations and assets at risk, in the past few years agencies and the
administration have taken actions to improve federal information security.
As we reported in our April 2003 testimony, OMB and agency efforts to
implement the information security requirements of the Federal

Information Security Management Act (FISMA) 16 have resulted in increased
management attention to information security and provided an improved
baseline for measuring improvements. FISMA requires federal agencies to
establish agencywide risk- based information security programs, which must
be independently evaluated annually, in order to protect agency
information and information systems from unauthorized access, use,
disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction. We also reported
that the administration has made progress through a

number of efforts, such as OMB*s establishment of requirements for
agencies to report the results of their annual security program reviews
and their plans to correct identified weaknesses, as well as its emphasis
of

information security in the budget process and e- government initiatives.
17 Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has
issued additional computer security guidance, including its Security
SelfAssessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, 18 which uses an
extensive questionnaire containing specific control objectives and
techniques against which an unclassified system or group of interconnected
systems can be tested and measured.

16 Title III of the E- Gov Act (P. L. 107- 347). 17 E- government refers
to the use of technology, particularly Web- based Internet applications,
to enhance the access to and delivery of government information and
services to citizens, business partners, employees, other agencies, and
other entities.

18 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Security Self-
Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, NIST Special
Publication 800- 26 (November 2001).

Most Agencies* A key characteristic of agencies* systems of records is
that a large

Systems of Records proportion of them are electronic, reflecting the
government*s significant

use of computers and the Internet to collect and share personal Contain
Electronic

information. Based on survey responses, we estimate that 70 percent of the
Records

agencies* 2,400 systems of records contain electronic records.
Specifically, an estimated 12 percent were exclusively electronic records,
58 percent were a combination of paper and electronic, and 31 percent were
exclusively paper records. 19 In addition, agencies allowed individuals to
access their personal information via the Internet in an estimated 9
percent of systems of records (about 1 in 10).

Our survey results revealed other key characteristics of our population of
over 2,400 systems of records, which illustrate the diversity across
agencies: The median number of people whose personal information was
maintained

in the sampled systems of records was about 3,500, but this number varied
significantly: the totals ranged from 5 people to about 290 million
people.

 The median number of systems of records at each agency was 68, but this
number varied significantly: the totals ranged from 1 to over 1, 000.

 Among the electronic records, 66 percent of systems of records resided
within one information system, and 34 percent resided within more than one
information system.

 The types of information that agencies used most frequently to actually
retrieve personal information from the system were the social security
number and the agency identification number.  The most frequent source of
the personal information in the systems of

records was the subject individual, followed by the agency, individuals
other than the subject, and another federal agency. 19 Figures do not add
to 100 percent due to rounding.

Agency Compliance While compliance with Privacy Act provisions and related
OMB guidance

with the Privacy Act was generally high in many areas, according to agency
reports, it was

uneven across the federal government* ranging from 100 percent for some
and OMB Guidance Is requirements to about 70 percent for others. For
example, for 100 percent

Uneven of agency systems of records, agencies followed the requirement to
issue a

rule that explains to the public why a system of records is exempt from
one or more of the act*s privacy protections. However, for other
provisions, agencies have not consistently established the necessary
policies and

procedures needed to ensure compliance and followed through on required
actions. Agency privacy officials attending our forum acknowledged this
uneven compliance; they pointed out, however, that implementation of the
Privacy Act in a rapidly changing environment presents a number of
difficult issues. Specifically, these officials identified barriers to
improved

compliance that include a need for more OMB leadership and guidance on the
act, low agency priority given to implementing the act, and insufficient
training on the act. In the absence of consistent compliance with the
Privacy Act, the government cannot adequately assure the public that all
legislated individual privacy rights are being protected.

Compliance Was Uneven

Collecting only relevant and necessary information. The Privacy Act among
Provisions of the

states that agencies are to collect only information that is relevant and
Privacy Act

necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be
accomplished by statute or executive order of the President. This
provision is aimed at preventing the improper use of personal information
in ways that could result in substantial harm or embarrassment to
individuals. OMB guidance states *In simplest terms, information not
collected about an individual cannot be misused.* Accordingly, OMB
guidance states that agencies are to assess the relevance and need for
personal information in the initial design of a new system of records or
whenever any change is

proposed in an existing system of records. Seventeen of the 25 agencies
stated that they did have written policies and procedures to determine,
before information systems become operational, whether any personal
information to be collected in a new system is needed, as OMB guidance
requires. (See fig. 1.) The remaining 8 agencies did not have such
policies

and procedures.

Figure 1: Policies to Assess Need to Collect Personal Information

Several agencies that did have such procedures in place reported positive
results from these assessments. These agencies identified instances since
October 1, 1998, where they decided not to collect or retain unnecessary

personal information because of Privacy Act considerations. For example: 
Transportation took steps to reduce the amount of personal information and
its availability in designing (1) a new identification system for

agency employees and (2) a possible Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) and associated systems for the Transportation Security
Administration. According to agency officials, TWIC was initiated at the
Department of Transportation, but transferred

to the Department of Homeland Security with the Transportation Security
Administration on March 1, 2003.

 The Treasury*s Financial Management Service decided not to collect or
retain social security numbers for its Pay. gov verification 20 or for the
Intra- Governmental Payment and Collections System. 21  The Social
Security Administration (SSA) decided not to copy (1) a State Workers
Compensation agency file and (2) a Veterans Benefits

Administration file containing military discharge records, because SSA
would need to access only a small percentage of the records.

 The Department of Defense eliminated a database that contained
information on dependents after finding that the information was neither
relevant nor necessary. Another component destroyed employees* tax return
information because it was neither relevant nor necessary.

As these examples show, following procedures to assess the need for
personal information in systems can effectively avoid privacy risks.
However, without such procedures consistently in place governmentwide,
agencies cannot ensure that only relevant personal information is
collected from individuals.

Providing public notice. A basic objective of the act is to foster agency
accountability through a system of public scrutiny. Among the provisions
of the act that provide this system of public scrutiny are the act*s
requirements to (1) issue Federal Register notices so that there are no
systems of records whose existence is secret and (2) publish rules in the

Code of Federal Regulations that describe the agency*s procedures for
individuals to determine if they are the subject of a record and to access
or amend their records. In addition, over the course of a year, agencies*
use of personal information in systems of records may change. Accordingly,
OMB Circular A- 130 requires agencies to review each system of records
notice biennially to ensure that it accurately describes the system of
records.

20 Pay. gov is a service developed by Treasury*s Financial Management
Service that can be used by other federal agencies to allow customers to
make payments electronically through the Internet. The service also
includes payment- related functions, such as authenticating users and
reporting back to agencies about transactions that have transpired.

21 The primary purpose of the Intra- Governmental Payment and Collection
System is to provide a standardized interagency fund transfer mechanism
for federal program agencies.

Agencies reported that they had issued the required Federal Register
notice for 89 percent of the systems of records. Of the 25 agencies
surveyed, 24 reported that they had published the required rules in the
Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, agencies reported they had completed
reviews of Federal Register notices on an estimated 79 percent of the 2,
400 systems of records. For those systems of records for which agencies
are not complying with public notice provisions, the public cannot obtain
current information on the existence of government systems that may
contain personal information. Without uniform compliance with these
provisions, agencies cannot consistently ensure that citizens can exercise
their rights to access, review, and amend such records, as guaranteed
under

the act.

Providing for informed consent. Under the act, individuals have a right to
be provided with detailed information about the agency*s request for
personal information before making an informed decision whether to
respond. Accordingly, the act requires agencies to provide individuals in

writing (1) the authority for soliciting the information and whether
disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary, (2) the
principal purposes for which the information is intended to be used, (3)
the routine uses that may be made of the information, and (4) the effects
on the individual, if any, of not providing the information. In addition,
agencies* uses of the information may change over time. Accordingly, OMB
Circular A- 130 requires agencies to review the routine use disclosures to
ensure that

they continue to be compatible with the purpose for which the information
was collected.

We estimate that for 82 percent of the systems of records, agencies did
provide individuals, in writing, with the information required by the act.
For the remaining 18 percent, individuals have not been provided with full
disclosure of the potential uses of their personal information.

In addition, of 25 agencies surveyed, 21 reported that they had adhered to
the OMB guidance to review routine use disclosures. Based on responses to
our survey of systems of records, we found that agencies reviewed these
routine use disclosures in an estimated 82 percent of the 2,400 systems of
records. For the systems for which these reviews were not done, agencies
cannot assure the public that the potential uses of their personal
information remains appropriate.

Protection against adverse determinations through maintaining accuracy.
One purpose of the act is to minimize, if not eliminate, the risk

that an agency will make an adverse determination about an individual on
the basis of incorrect information. Accordingly, the act requires that
agencies, when making determinations about individuals or when disclosing
personal information to a nonfederal organization, maintain all

records with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is
reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual. Agency-
reported compliance with the accuracy requirements varied

considerably. With regard to determinations made about an individual, we
estimate that agencies had procedures in place to ensure that the personal
information about an individual is complete, accurate, relevant, and
timely in 95 percent of systems of records. However, compliance with
accuracy requirements was considerably lower when the agencies disclosed

personal information to nonfederal organizations* an estimated 71 percent
of systems of records. A related issue is the use of computer matches, 22
which are generally

subject to the act*s protections if they are used to make determinations
that involve (1) applying for federal benefits, (2) recouping government
payments to individuals, (3) collecting delinquent debts the individual
owes the government, or (4) federal personnel or payroll records. We
estimate that less than 5 percent of the approximately 2,400 systems of
records were involved in one or more computer matching programs during
2001;

however, this 5 percent includes systems containing records on very large
numbers of people, including one, according to SSA, covering approximately
360 million applicants for social security numbers of which 70 million are
known to be deceased. OMB requires agencies to review each ongoing
computer matching program to ensure that the requirements of the act and
OMB guidance had been met. Our survey results indicate that 9 of the 13
agencies that maintain computer matching programs complied with the OMB
requirement to make such reviews.

22 Computer matching is the identification of similarities or
dissimilarities in data found in two or more computer files. However, many
computer matches fall outside the act, such as matches performed to
produce aggregate statistical data without any personal identifiers and
matches performed to support any research or statistical project.
According to OMB guidance, such data may not be used to make decisions
concerning the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals.
(Dec. 20, 2000, memorandum from the Director, OMB, to the heads of
executive departments and agencies, Guidance on Inter- Agency Sharing of
Personal Data* Protecting Personal Privacy.)

Without consistent reviews of computer matching programs for compliance
with the act and OMB guidance, the government cannot ensure that personal
information shared with other entities and used for decision making in
federal programs is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.

Safeguarding personal information. Once an agency makes a decision to
collect personal information, safeguarding the information is vital to
complying with the Privacy Act. As discussed earlier, our reports have
consistently found that information security is a high- risk area for the
government in general, with potentially devastating consequences if it is
not ensured. Moreover, the importance of adequate safeguards is
underscored by the types of sensitive personal information most frequently
found in the systems of records: name, social security number, telephone
numbers, home address, work address, and demographic information (e. g.,
marital status).

OMB*s guidance calls for a detailed assessment of risks and the
establishment of specific administrative, technical, procedural, and
physical safeguards. Based on survey responses, we estimate that during
fiscal years 1999 through 2001, agencies did assess security safeguards
for 82 percent of systems of records, but did not for the remaining 18
percent. (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Agencies* Assessments of Security Safeguards

Protecting personal information that is maintained in automated
information systems is of particular importance. In response to our
surveys, agencies generally did not report incidents of unauthorized
reading, altering, disclosing, or destroying personal information in

automated information systems. 23 However, we also estimate that in 21
percent of about 2,400 systems of records, agencies reported that they did
not have the means to detect when persons, without authorization, were
reading, altering, disclosing, or destroying information in the system.
(See fig. 3.)

23 Agencies reported two incidents. However, these two incidents were not
in our random sample and thus not weighted sufficiently to lower
compliance below 100 percent, as shown in appendix IV.

Figure 3: Agencies* Means to Detect Unauthorized Access

Without appropriate security safeguards and the means to assess them,
agencies cannot ensure that personal information maintained by the
government is protected from unauthorized access, disclosure, and
alteration.

Accounting for disclosures. Individuals have a right under the act to know
to whom records about themselves have been disclosed outside the agency,
so that (among other purposes) those recipients can be subsequently
advised of any corrected or disputed records. Accordingly, agencies are to
maintain an accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of

each disclosure of a record, and the name and address of the person or
agency to whom the disclosure is made. We estimate that agencies were able
to account for such disclosures in 86 percent of their 2,400 systems of
records but were not able to do so for 14 percent. For systems for which
agencies cannot account for disclosures, agencies cannot advise
individuals of how and by whom their personal information is being used.

Training employees. The Privacy Act states that agencies are to establish
rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development,

operation, or maintenance of systems of records and to instruct each
person on those rules, including the penalties for noncompliance. In
discussing the act*s requirement for agencies to issue rules, OMB guidance
states that training employees on the act is important for compliance:

Effective compliance with the provisions of this act will require informed
and active support of a broad cross section of agency personnel. It is
important that all personnel who in any way have access to systems of
records or who are engaged in the development of procedures or systems for
handling records, be informed of the requirements of the act and be
adequately trained in agency procedures developed to implement the act.

As the table shows, one- third of agencies have not issued the act*s
required rules of conduct for employees, and about one out of five had not
established procedures to ensure adequate training for personnel with
access to systems of records.

Tabl e 1: Agencywide Compliance with Training Requirements Compliance
question In compliance

Has your agency established rules of conduct for persons who are 16 of 24
involved in operations and maintenance of records? agencies Has your
agency established rules of conduct for persons involved 15 of 24 in
design and development of systems of records? agencies Does your agency
have procedures to ensure that personnel with

20 of 25 access to systems of records or who are engaged in developing
agencies procedures are adequately trained?

Source: GAO.

In addition, for an estimated 74 percent of systems of records, agencies
also reported that they provided *all or almost all* staff with such
training but did not for an estimated 26 percent. If agency employees have
not been

appropriately trained, they may not be aware of their responsibilities
under the act and may not fully comply with its requirements.

Providing notice of exemptions. The Privacy Act permits certain categories
of records to be exempted from some requirements of the act (e. g., access
to records); according to OMB guidance, agencies can make exemptions if
complying with those requirements could adversely affect agencies* conduct
of necessary public business. The act contains two categories of
exemptions: (1) general exemptions that include systems of

records maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency or for criminal law
enforcement purposes and (2) specific exemptions for systems of records
that include classified material, statistical records, and certain
personnel investigation and evaluation material. For example, the act
allows agencies to deny a person access to his or her law enforcement
files if doing so

would impair an ongoing investigation. Other types of records may be
exempted from the provision in the act that allows individuals to sue for
violations of the act and seek civil remedies and from the provision to
ensure the accuracy of the information disclosed to third parties.

According to OMB guidance, no system of records is automatically exempt
from any provision of the act. To obtain an exemption for a system from
any requirement of the act, the head of the agency that maintains the
system must make a determination that the system falls within one of the
categories of systems that are permitted to be exempted and publish a
notice on the determination as a rule. That notice must include why the
agency considers the exemption necessary and the specific provisions
proposed to be exempted. OMB Circular A- 130 requires agencies to review
any exemptions every 4 years to determine if they are still needed. As
shown in the following table, we estimate that agencies issued the

required rule explaining why the system of records was exempt for 100
percent of the systems of records; however, for about one in seven
systems, agencies did not review the rule every 4 years as OMB requires.
For systems that are not reviewed periodically as required, agencies have
diminished assurance that all existing exemptions from Privacy Act

provisions are still necessary.

Table 2: Compliance with Exemption Requirements Compliance question
Results

Has your agency issued a Federal Register notice explaining 24 of 24
agencies the reasons for exempting the system of records from certain in
compliance provisions of the act?

During fiscal years 1998* 2001, did your agency review each 19 of 24
agencies system of records containing exemptions to determine in
compliance whether such exemptions were still needed? Has your agency
issued a rule that explains why your agency

100 percent considers the exemption necessary? compliance among systems of
records During fiscal years 1998* 2001, did your agency review the 85% of
systems of exemptions to determine whether these exemptions were still
records in needed? compliance; a 15% not in

compliance Source: GAO. a The confidence interval is +-15 percent.

The specific compliance questions in our surveys and agency responses can
be found in appendix IV.

Agencies Believe that The 24 agency representatives who attended our
February 2003 forum Additional OMB Guidance

acknowledged that compliance was not yet consistent across agencies and
Would Help Improve

systems of records. They identified the following as the most significant
Compliance with the Act

barriers to improving their compliance:  lack of sufficient OMB
leadership, oversight, and guidance on the

Privacy Act (first choice);  low agency priority on implementing the act,
which adversely affects the

level of resources devoted to it (second choice); and  insufficient
training to satisfy the wide range of employee involvement

with the act (e. g., executives have different training needs than do
persons designing information systems) (third choice).

OMB Guidance and Oversight At our privacy forum, agency representatives
reported that the most

Described as Moderately significant factor in uneven agency compliance was
the need for additional

Effective, but Agencies Ask for OMB leadership on implementing the Privacy
Act in today*s electronic More Attention in Specific Areas

environment. Because the Privacy Act mandates that OMB provide agencies
with continuing assistance and oversight, agencies look to OMB for
additional help and guidance. According to agency responses to our
surveys, agencies are not generally dissatisfied with OMB*s guidance and
assistance on the Privacy Act: for example, most agencies judged that
OMB*s assistance on the act was at least *moderately effective* overall.
(See app. V for more detail on agency responses in this area.) However,
both on the surveys and at the forum they named a number of specific

areas in which they wanted further guidance, including the application of
the Privacy Act to electronic records.

To address this first barrier, the most important action the agency
representatives identified was that OMB should become more proactive by
publishing additional guidance in certain areas and providing increased
assistance to agencies. Several forum participants also noted the
abundance of guidance available from the Department of Justice on the
Freedom of Information Act and expressed interest in having similar
information made available on the Privacy Act. Forum participants also
suggested that it would be helpful if OMB were to convene periodic
meetings of Privacy Act officers to discuss important areas where the
guidance is not clear. Participants saw such meetings as opportunities for

agencies to let OMB know where guidance and assistance were needed, to
pool their knowledge, and to work with OMB to leverage resources (such as
training information).

In addition, on our surveys, nine agencies reported that specific
additions or revisions to OMB guidance were needed for them to better
implement the act. Among the areas of the act cited most frequently were

 how the definition of a system of records applies to electronic
databases,

 how the disclosure provisions apply to electronic databases,

 coverage of sole proprietors (entrepreneurs) under the act, 24 and 
cost- benefit guidance for computer matches. 25 The observation that
additional OMB guidance on the Privacy Act would be

helpful is not new. In our previous reports in this area, we have
recommended that OMB issue guidance on Web site privacy policies and on
agencies* use of cookies. 26 Similarly, in response to the May 1998
privacy initiative, agencies requested updated guidance, particularly with
regard to new technologies, and suggested that OMB establish an
interagency task

force and host periodic conferences on privacy. OMB has not yet acted
either on our recommendations or on previous agency requests for
additional guidance.

Agencies See Privacy Act Forum participants reported that agency
management tends to assign low

Implementation as Receiving priority to implementation of the Privacy Act.
They commented that

Low Priority implementation was classed among support functions, which are
often the

first to be cut when resources are tight, and that Privacy Act offices
were often *buried* in agencies. Also, Privacy Act officers may find
themselves placed in an adversarial position when they tell their
management not to take certain actions that could violate the act.
Further, there was general

agreement among forum participants that OMB officials had not demonstrated
that the Privacy Act was a priority, and that this low priority tended to
result in a similar low priority at agencies. One participant cited the
minimal level of OMB resources devoted to assisting agencies to carry out
the act* primarily one person* as indicative of the low priority placed

24 According to OMB guidance, the act only covers individuals acting in a
personal capacity rather than acting in a business capacity (e. g., as
entrepreneurs). The guidance states *Agencies should examine the content
of the records in question to determine whether the information being
maintained is, in fact, personal in nature. A secondary criterion in
deciding whether the subject of an agency file is, for purposes of the
act, an individual, is the

manner in which the information is used: i. e., is the subject dealt with
in a personal or entrepreneurial role.* Privacy Act Implementation:
Guidelines and Responsibilities, Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 132 (July
9, 1975).

25 The Computer Matching Act requires that a benefit/ cost analysis be
part of an agency*s decision to conduct or participate in a matching
program. However, the act authorizes the agency Data Integrity Boards to
waive this requirement in certain circumstances.

26 U. S. General Accounting Office, Internet Privacy: Agencies* Efforts to
Implement OMB*s Privacy Policy, GAO/ GGD- 00- 191 (Washington, D. C.:
Sept. 5, 2000); Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for
Agency Use of Cookies, GAO- 01- 424 (Washington,

D. C.: Apr. 27, 2001).

on the act. Furthermore, participants said this lack of OMB leadership and
top management attention tended to adversely affect the resources that
agencies assigned to carrying out the act.

To address this second barrier, the most important action the forum
participants identified was for agency top managers to place increased
priority on implementing the act, including making additional resources
available. However, when asked in the survey about the resources that are
devoted to implementing the act, most agencies were unable to answer many
of the questions. Agencies are not required to track such resources, and
many respondents found estimating the resources burdensome. In

appendix VI, we provide limited information on this topic, as well as on
the organizational structures that agencies have set up to implement the
Privacy Act. Agencies See a Need for

Forum participants stated that the agencies did not provide sufficient
Increased and More Focused

training for agency staff who handle personal information subject to the
Training on the Privacy Act

act. They stated that the most important action to address this barrier
was OMB overseeing the development of additional training for employees
with varying degrees of involvement with the act and making the training
more readily available (perhaps on the Web or on CD). Several participants
noted that there should be role- based training that varies based on the
employees* involvement with the act. For example, there could be a general
orientation session on the act for all employees, and different training
for executives, Privacy Act officers, and systems managers. Further
details on the forum results are provided in appendix II.

Agencies Maintain The protections of the Privacy Act are limited to
personal information that Personal Information

is retrieved by a personal identifier. Over the years since the act*s
passage, concerns have been raised regarding the protection of personal
outside the Privacy Act

information that does not fall within the scope of the act. (For example,
in a Limited Number of

electronic databases frequently permit the retrieval of personal
information Information Systems

by search terms other than a personal identifier.) A preliminary step to
addressing these concerns is to estimate the extent of personal
information that is maintained outside Privacy Act systems. Based on
agency responses to our survey, we estimate that 67 percent of the 730
information systems in use at large agencies during fiscal year 2002
contained personal information, regardless of whether this personal
information was in a Privacy Act system of records. Of these 730, we
estimate that 11 percent (83) contained personal information outside a
Privacy Act system of records. 27 (See fig. 10.)

Figure 4: Information Systems Containing Personal Information Not in a
Privacy Act System of Records

27 The 95 percent confidence interval of the estimated 11 percent is from
6 percent to 19 percent. The corresponding total estimate of 83 has a
confidence interval of 44 to 139.

How many of these information systems contain any personal information not
in a Privacy Act system of records (SOR)? Agencies reported that they
maintain personal information outside a system of records when the
information

 is not retrieved by use of identifying information (e. g., name), but
rather by nonidentifying information (e. g., zip code);

 concerns deceased persons (e. g., deceased recipients of social security
benefits);

 concerns entrepreneurs acting in a business rather than a personal
capacity (e. g., persons seeking government business loans); or  concerns
aliens who are not permanent residents of the United States

(e. g., persons seeking a visa to enter this country). The most frequently
cited reason why these systems were not considered Privacy Act systems of
records was that the agency did not use a personal identifier to retrieve
the personal information. For example, the Department of Labor stated that
it collects personal information from persons who claim not to have been
paid all the wages owed them. Because it uses company names, rather than
the names of individuals, to retrieve the

information, Labor officials stated they are not required to keep this
personal information in a Privacy Act system of records.

However, a few agencies reported that, for administrative convenience,
they put such information in Privacy Act systems of records even when not
required. (OMB guidance encourages agencies to do this.) For example, the
Department of Health and Human Service*s Center for Disease Control
maintains records on deceased individuals. These records also have
information about living persons (for example, the next of kin).
Therefore, all the information is maintained in a Privacy Act system of
records.

Other laws besides the Privacy Act provide certain privacy and security
protections to personal information outside Privacy Act systems of
records. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended, the

public has a right of access to federal agency records, except for those
records that are protected from disclosure by nine stated exemptions. Two
exemptions in FOIA protect personal privacy interests from disclosure. The
first exemption allows the federal government to withhold information

about individuals in personnel and medical files when the disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The second
exemption allows the federal government to withhold records of

information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent
that the production of such law enforcement records or information could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. A second law that protects information in federal records is the
Federal

Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 28 which requires federal
agencies to protect agency information and information systems from
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or

destruction. Conclusions Agency responses on key characteristics of their
systems of records highlight the increasingly complex environment in which
federal agencies must operate. Agencies reported that information is
maintained on vast numbers of individuals, largely in electronic form, and
that a single system of records may reside in multiple information
systems. Understanding this environment* and its potential impact on
individuals* privacy* will be important as the government continues to
refine its privacy policies and guidance.

While Privacy Act compliance is generally high in many areas, it is not
consistent across the federal government and could be improved. Agencies
bear primary responsibility for compliance with the act, but they have not
yet fully put into place the processes and follow- through needed to
ensure compliance. Further, according to agencies, they face difficult

implementation issues. Specifically, OMB has not responded either to
longstanding agency requests or to our recommendations for improved
guidance. In addition, agencies believe that OMB has not provided enough

assistance in dealing with challenges such as the low priority generally
accorded to the Privacy Act and the lack of appropriate training. Until
these issues are addressed by agencies and OMB and compliance with the
Privacy Act across government is improved, the government cannot
adequately assure the public that all legislated individual privacy rights
are being protected.

28 Title III of the E- Gov Act (P. L. 107- 347).

Agencies reported that about 11 percent of their automated systems contain
personal information that is not subject to the act*s protections. In view
of the concerns about the scope of the Privacy Act, this information may
be useful as a first step in understanding this issue in the current
electronic environment. Further study is required, however, to determine
what information is maintained, how it is used, and the potential effects,
if any, on individual privacy rights.

Recommendations for To improve agency compliance with the Privacy Act, we
recommend that

Executive Action the Director, OMB,

 direct agencies to correct the deficiencies in compliance with the
Privacy Act that agencies identified in this report,

 oversee agency implementation of actions needed to correct these
deficiencies, and  monitor overall agency compliance with the act. To
address implementation issues related to compliance with the Privacy Act,
we recommend that the Director

 assess the need for specific changes to OMB guidance, especially with
regard to electronic records, and update the guidance, as appropriate;

 raise the awareness and commitment of senior agency officials to the
importance of the principles that underlie the Privacy Act;  lead a
governmentwide effort to (1) determine the level of resources,

including human capital, currently devoted to Privacy Act implementation
by both OMB and the agencies, (2) assess the level of resources needed to
fully implement the act, (3) identify the gap, if any, between current and
needed resources, and (4) develop a plan for

addressing any gap that may exist; and  oversee the development of
Privacy Act training that meets the needs of

the wide range of employees who carry out the act and make this training
readily available to agencies.

Further, we recommend that the Director oversee an assessment of the
potential impact on individual privacy of federal agencies* maintaining
personal information that is not subject to the act. The Director should
involve federal agencies as appropriate in addressing the above
recommendations. One option for doing so would be to establish a
multiagency working group or forum, perhaps as part of the Chief

Information Officers Council. Agency Comments and

We provided a draft of this report to OMB for review and comment. In a Our
Evaluation

letter dated June 20, 2003, the Administrators of OMB*s Offices of
Information and Regulatory Affairs and of E- Government and Information
Technology provided comments. This letter is reprinted in appendix VII
along with our additional analysis of the comments.

The Administrators stated that our report has taken an important first
step toward identifying areas in which further research and discussion can
be undertaken, including through a series of meetings with agency
officials. However, the Administrators stated that the information
presented does not support the conclusion in the draft report that without
improved compliance, the government cannot assure the public that
individual privacy rights are being protected. Specifically, the
Administrators fault what they characterize as a fundamental flaw in the
draft report: our treatment of the various provisions of the act as
equally important in protecting privacy. In addition, they note that while
compliance may not be perfectly consistent, a lack of perfect consistency
from one agency to the next *should hardly be surprising* across the
dozens of agencies that make up the government. Further, the
Administrators state that the draft report does not indicate whether
agency compliance with the Privacy Act is more uneven than is agency
compliance with other laws, such as the Administrative Procedures Act, and
so our findings on the Privacy Act do *not really say much.* Finally, OMB
disagrees with our recommendations, stating that they are vague and
nebulous.

We disagree with OMB*s overall comment that the information in the draft
report does not support our conclusion. We continue to believe that
without improved compliance, the government cannot adequately assure the
public that all legislated individual privacy rights are being protected.
In passing the Privacy Act, the Congress enacted a series of requirements
designed, in total, to ensure protection of individuals* privacy.
Accordingly, we believe that because agencies did not consistently comply
with these

requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that the government lacks
adequate assurance that privacy rights are being protected. With regard to
the lack of consistency across agencies, our report does not address
whether federal agencies have consistent practices, but whether federal
agencies are consistently following legal requirements imposed by Congress
and those practices that OMB found sufficiently important to be included
in its Privacy Act guidance. Further, we believe that federal

agencies should strive for consistent compliance with these requirements
and others mandated by the Congress.

Regarding our recommendations, the draft report contains extensive details
on agency noncompliance with specific provisions of the Privacy Act and
OMB guidance. In addition, it contains many specifics on agencies*
suggestions for improvements in guidance. Further, we believe our
recommendations provide the appropriate level of detail needed for OMB to
address the issues from a governmentwide perspective. We recognize,
however, that our compliance results, in particular, are presented in
aggregate form; we did not include our more detailed results in the report

because this material is voluminous and because agencies are already well
aware of the specific shortcomings in compliance. Nonetheless, we will be
providing OMB with additional details to help in its improvement efforts.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of
other interested congressional committees. We are also sending copies to
the 25 departments and agencies we surveyed. Copies will be made available
to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on GAO*s Web site at www. gao. gov.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)
512- 6240 or send E- mail to koontzl@ gao. gov. Key contacts and major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours, Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Scope and Methodology We asked the following 25 departments and agencies
to respond to survey questions about their privacy practices and
procedures:  Departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Energy,

Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior,
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs

 Agencies: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Government Ethics (OGE),
Small Business Administration (SBA), Social Security Administration (SSA),
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) We selected these agencies to provide a cross section of large and
small agencies that were likely to have different missions and
organizational structures and, perhaps, different approaches to
implementing the Privacy Act. In fiscal year 2002, the nine small
agencies* EEOC, FEMA, OPM, NSF, OGE, PBGC, FTC, OSC, and SEC* had a median
of approximately1,200

full- time equivalent staff years; the range of staff years was from 80
(OGE) to approximately 3,000 (SEC). For the remaining two large agencies
and 14 departments, the median number of staff years was 64,268, with a
range from approximately 4,517 (SBA) to approximately 670, 166 (Defense).
Each

agency decided which person was best qualified to respond to the survey
and who in management was to review and approve the response. We use the
term *agency* to refer to (1) executive departments such as the Department
of Justice and (2) independent agencies such as OPM.

Surveys We used three surveys to obtain information on the following
areas: the first addressed agencywide practices, and the second addressed
systems of

records; these two surveys contained questions on the characteristics of
systems of records and compliance with the act and related OMB guidance.
The third survey focused on information technology projects; for these, we
asked questions on systems containing personal information not subject to
the act*s protections. Survey on agencywide practices. We asked these 25
agencies to answer questions about agencywide Privacy Act practices and
procedures (e. g., how many systems of records exist). Each agency decided
which person was best qualified to respond to the survey and who in
management was to

review and approve the response. In 18 of the 25 agencies, the person
completing the survey was the person who had day- to- day responsibility
for implementing the Privacy Act and was also the agency*s Privacy Act
officer. These persons were, on average, three levels removed from the
head of the agency and had been performing these duties at this agency an
average of 8 years. The questionnaire also contained questions about
compliance with specific Privacy Act provisions and related OMB guidance.
To help ensure that agencies understood the questions, we pretested the
survey with agency officials. We achieved a 100 percent response rate.

Survey on systems of records. We also surveyed agencies to gather
information about their systems of records* compliance with Privacy Act
requirements and OMB guidance. The population for this survey consisted of
all systems of records that existed in the 25 agencies as of December
1999. From this population of 3,637 systems of records, we selected a
probability sample of 204. This was a stratified sample consisting of two
strata. The following table summarizes the population size, sample size,
and respondents by sample. Tabl e 3: Respondents to Second Survey

Stratum Population Sample size Respondents Response rate

Certainty 19 19 18 95% All others 3618 185 179 97%

Tot al 3637 204 197 97%

Source: GAO.

The certainty sample consisted of 19 systems of records that were
considered to be large or otherwise important systems for this survey.
Approximately one- third of the selected systems of records no longer
existed at the time of the survey. Therefore, estimates from our survey
project to an estimated population of 2,443 (+- 244) systems of records
from 1999 that still existed at the time of the survey.

Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,
our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have
drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample*s results
as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would
contain the

actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have
drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the
confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the
study population.

All percentage estimates in this report have 95 percent confidence
intervals of +-10 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.

To help ensure that agencies understood the questions, we pretested the
survey with agency officials. We achieved a 96 percent response rate.

Survey on information technology projects and information outside privacy
act systems of records. We also surveyed agencies concerning a sample of
150 information technology projects randomly selected from 17

agencies* budget Exhibit 53s for fiscal year 2002 (Exhibit 53 is required
by OMB Circular A- 11). 1 We first asked agencies if these projects
contained any information systems in use; if they did, we then asked
questions about those information systems. We selected our sample of 150
information systems from a population of 730 that were in use in fiscal
year 2002. To help ensure that agencies understood the questions, we
pretested the

survey with agency officials. We achieved a 76 percent response rate.

Analysis of survey results. All of our samples are probability samples and
produce estimates that could vary for any particular random sample chosen.
Unless otherwise noted, we are 95 percent confident that the true value is
within +-10 percentage points of estimated percentages.

To minimize the chances of introducing into our results errors not related
to sampling, we reviewed the agencies* responses to our surveys, asked
respondents to clarify answers, validated a sample of responses, and
verified a sample of the survey data keypunched into our database to
ensure that it was accurate.

Based on agency responses to each of the compliance questions, we
developed a compliance score for particular provisions of the Privacy Act
and related OMB guidance. For example, if agencies returned 180 surveys
that contained answers to a compliance question, the maximum number that
could comply with the requirement would be 180. Then, if agencies

1 The 17 agencies that had prepared budget Exhibit 53s were (1)
Agriculture, (2) Commerce, (3) Defense, (4) Education, (5) Energy, (6)
Health and Human Services, (7) Interior, (8) Justice, (9) Housing and
Urban Development, (10) Labor, (11) State, (12) Transportation, (13)
Treasury, (14) VA, (15) FEMA, (16) OPM, and (17) SSA.

reported compliance on a particular question in 140 of the 180 surveys, we
would assign a score of 78 percent (140 divided by 180) to that question.

To help ensure the accuracy of answers related to compliance with the
Privacy Act or OMB guidance, we randomly selected 20 percent of agencies*
responses to the survey of agencywide practices and 10 percent of
responses to the survey on systems of records and asked officials to
provide documentation or additional narrative explanations to support
their answers for key compliance questions. In addition, when agencies
stated in their responses that they had issued certain public documents
required under the act (e. g., a regulation), we located and reviewed the
documents to be certain that they had been issued. The results of this
validation work gave us greater assurance about the accuracy of agencies*
survey responses. We also emailed relevant portions of the draft report to
officials in the Departments of Defense, Justice, Health and Human

Services, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and officials at OGE, SEC, SBA,
SSA, and OPM, that are mentioned specifically in the report, for their
review and comment. Each of the agencies emailed suggestions to clarify
particular sections of the report, which we included in this report as
appropriate.

Privacy Act Forum To better understand the implications of our survey
results, we invited the 25 agencies to send a representative (mostly
Privacy Act officers) to a

meeting in February 2003, and 24 participated. At this meeting, we
presented the survey results and then asked the participants to identify
the barriers to improved compliance with the act, actions needed to
improve compliance, and other issues. After participants discussed their
answers to these questions, we asked them to use electronic devices to
anonymously record their *votes* on various privacy issues. To identify
the relative importance of the barriers to agency compliance generated by
participants, we assigned different point values to the participants*
first, second, and third choices. For example, we told participants their
first choice for the most important barrier to improving compliance would
receive three

points, their choice for the second most important barrier would receive
two points, etc. We also asked participants to discuss the adequacy of the
act in today*s electronic environment and what changes, if any, were
needed to the act. We incorporated the results of these discussions and
votes into the appropriate sections of this report. (See app. II for a

summary of the results.)

Presidential Privacy We reviewed the responses to the President*s
memorandum of May 14,

Initiative 1998; OMB*s memorandum of January 7, 1999; and subsequent
agency

reports to OMB regarding their reviews of their Privacy Act systems of
records and other privacy practices. We entered the 72 executive
departments and agencies* responses into a database and summarized them.

Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy

Appendi x II

Forum on the Survey Results To better understand the results of our
surveys, we invited the 25 agencies we surveyed to send a representative
to a privacy forum at GAO headquarters in February 2003. At this forum, we
presented the key results from our surveys and then asked the following
questions:

 What are the major barriers to improving agency compliance with the
Privacy Act?

 What actions can be taken to address these barriers?  In view of
today*s electronic environment, to what extent does the

Privacy Act provide adequate privacy protections to individuals?  What
changes, if any, should be made to the Privacy Act to make it more

consistent with the current environment and management practices? Twenty-
four of the 25 agencies sent a representative. (The Department of Health
and Human Services was not represented.) The key results from the
discussion of each question are presented below. Major Barriers to

The 24 agency representatives who attended our February 2003 forum on
Improving Agency

the survey results identified the following as the three most significant
barriers to improving agency compliance: Compliance with the Privacy Act
and

 lack of sufficient Office of Management and Budget (OMB) leadership,
Actions That Could oversight, and guidance on the Privacy Act (first
choice, with 50 points);

Address These Barriers  low agency priority on implementing the act,
which adversely affected the level of resources devoted to it (second
choice, with 36 points); and

 insufficient training to satisfy the wide range of employee involvement
with the act (e. g., executives have different training needs than do
persons designing information systems) (third choice, with 23 points).

Each of these barriers and the actions that could address them are
discussed below.

Lack of Sufficient OMB Agency participants were in general agreement that
OMB officials had not

Leadership, Guidance, and provided sufficient leadership, guidance, and
assistance to agencies on the

Assistance Privacy Act. Participants said that these shortcomings tended
to adversely affect the resources and priorities those agencies assigned
to the act.

Many representatives cited the lack of sufficient OMB guidance as a
significant barrier to compliance, particularly guidance on electronic
records. Among the views that participants expressed were the following: 
Agencies do not know how to fit the *paper statute* into the electronic

realm in which most agencies operate today.  OMB guidance is crucial to
small agencies* successful implementation of the act, because they lack
the legal resources of larger agencies.  Lack of sufficient OMB guidance
is particularly troublesome in areas

where various courts have decided differently on privacy issues, and
agencies need to know which legal ruling is correct.

Agency participants stated that the most important action to address this
barrier was OMB demonstrating more proactive leadership by publishing
additional guidance in several areas and providing increased assistance to
agencies. Several participants noted the abundance of guidance available
from the Department of Justice*s Office of Information and Privacy on the
Freedom of Information Act and wanted similar information available on the
Privacy Act. It was also suggested that OMB should convene periodic
meetings of Privacy Act officers to discuss important areas where the
guidance is not clear. Participants saw such meetings as opportunities for

agencies to let OMB know where guidance and assistance were needed, to
work together by pooling their knowledge, and to work with OMB to leverage
resources (such as training information). Another suggestion was that
Congress provide OMB or the agencies with additional resources in the
privacy area.

Low Agency Priority and Agency participants stated that agencies* top
management had placed a low

Resources Devoted to the priority on implementing the act, and that, in
turn, had adversely affected Privacy Act

the level of resources devoted to its implementation in agencies.
Participants expressed the following views:

 As a support function, Privacy Act implementation is often the first
area to be cut when resources are tight. Privacy Act offices are *buried*
in the agency and cannot compete with program offices, which carry out the
agencies* primary missions and thus have higher priority.

 Privacy Act officers may be placed in an adversarial position when they
tell their agencies not to take certain actions that could violate the
act; they may need OMB to provide support for their position. 
Implementing the Privacy Act often has a lower priority than that placed

on implementing the Freedom of Information Act.  The resources that OMB
devotes to assisting agencies to carry out the act suggests that OMB
places less priority on the act than on its other missions; this perceived
priority can affect the resources that agencies devote to it.

 In carrying out its responsibilities under the act, OMB is reactive,
rather than proactive.

Participants stated that the most important action to address this barrier
was for agencies (including OMB) to provide a higher priority to the act,
along with the additional monetary and human resources associated with
that higher priority. Several participants observed that additional
resources would be made available if their agency*s top managers or OMB
officials placed a higher priority on implementing the act.

Insufficient Training on the Agency participants stated that more training
was needed for agency staff

Act to Meet the Wide Variety that handle personal information subject to
the act. This statement is

of Employee Involvement consistent with the results of our survey, in
which 5 of the 25 agencies

reported that they had less than adequate procedures to ensure that
personnel with access to systems of records are adequately trained.

In particular, forum participants noted the difficulty of communicating
privacy requirements to technical staff who deal with information systems:

 Communication problems arise between Privacy Act officers and system
managers regarding technology issues; privacy staff may need more
technical knowledge, and technical staff may need more Privacy Act
knowledge.

 Because the E- Gov Act 1 will require privacy impact assessments before
information systems are built, system managers and privacy officials may
have to communicate more often. However, this legislation does not affect
existing databases, which currently lead to many of the communication
problems.

 OMB guidance does not sufficiently communicate how to adequately protect
personal information in large automated databases.

Agency participants stated that the most important action to address this
barrier was OMB overseeing the development of additional training for
employees who have varying kinds and degrees of involvement with the act
and making the training more readily available (perhaps on the Web or on

CD). Several participants noted that there should be role- based training
that varies based on the employees* involvement with the act. For example,
there could be a general orientation session on the act for all employees,
and different training for executives, Privacy Act officers, and systems
managers.

Adequacy of Privacy Eleven of the 23 agency representatives (48 percent)
who attended our

Act Protection in February 2003 forum (one did not answer the question)
believed to a

*moderate* extent that in today*s electronic environment, the Privacy Act
Today*s El ect roni c provides adequate privacy protections to
individuals. Among the remaining Environment

12, no agency representative chose *very great extent*; 7 chose *great
extent*; 4 chose *some extent*; and 1 chose *little or no extent.*

Among the privacy issues that participants said were raised by today*s
electronic environment are the following:

 Electronic records are easier to collect than are paper records, perhaps
resulting in some information being collected that may not be needed. (The
Privacy Act states that agencies shall collect only information that is
relevant and necessary.)

 Electronic records are easier to access and thus might not be protected
as well as paper records. Participants raised the question of whether

1 Public Law 107- 347 (Dec. 17, 2002). Among other things, this act seeks
to expand the delivery of government services through greater use of the
Internet and computer resources.

electronic records should have a different level of protection under the
act than paper records. (The Privacy Act states that agencies are to
establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
for personal information.).

 The aim of some E- government initiatives to increase the collection and
sharing of personal information among agencies could be in conflict with
the Privacy Act*s goal to constrain the government*s ability to use
personal information.

 The ease with which electronic databases can be created and merged may
result in *unofficial* systems of records; agencies may not know how their
data are being used.

 The definition of *record* may need updating, along with other terms in
the act, to reflect today*s electronic environment.

 Homeland security needs may be generating more personal information that
is maintained outside the act, raising privacy concerns.

 Insufficient attention may have been paid to agencies* collection and
maintenance of personal information via the Internet and the conformance
of these activities with the act*s requirements.

 Guidance is not available on how to give access to electronic records
that contain the names of multiple people, each of whom has rights to
retrieve the same record.

Need for Changes in There was no general agreement among participants on
desired changes to

the Privacy Act for the act; rather, many participants said their concerns
could be addressed

through revisions to OMB guidance and were opposed to making any
Consistency with the

changes to the act. However, other participants suggested that Congress
Current Environment

revisit several areas of the act, including the following: and Management
 Computer matches. Specifically, Congress should extend the time
Practices

frames for the initial computer match agreements and renewals from 18
months and 12 months to 3 years and 2 years, respectively. They believed
this is needed because it would reduce the excessive burden on agencies of
having to renegotiate these complex documents so frequently.

 Disclosures pursuant to courts of competent jurisdiction under section
(b)- 11. There are federal, state, local, and tribal court systems in this
country. Congress needs to clarify whether requests from nonfederal courts
are covered under this section.

Appendi x III

OMB Guidance on Privacy OMB*s primary guidance to agencies on implementing
the Privacy Act is

*Privacy Act Implementation, Guidelines and Responsibilities,* 40 FR 28948
(July 9, 1975), and Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A- 130, *Management of
Federal Information Resources,* Transmittal Memorandum No. 4 (effective
Nov. 28, 2000), 65 FR 77677 (Dec. 12, 2000).

In addition, as of April 2003, OMB*s Web site had links to the following
memoranda and other documents categorized as *Privacy Guidance,* which
covered a variety of topics:

 M- 01- 05, Guidance on Inter- Agency Sharing of Personal Data*
Protecting Personal Privacy (December 20, 2000).

 Letter from John Spotila to Roger Baker, clarification of OMB Cookies
Policy (September 5, 2000).

 Letter from Roger Baker to John Spotila on federal agency use of Web
cookies (July 28, 2000).

 Status of Biennial Reporting Requirements under the Privacy Act and the
Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (June 21, 2000).

 M- 00- 13, Privacy Policies and Data Collection on Federal Web Sites
(June 22, 2000).

 M- 99- 18, Privacy Policies on Federal Web Sites (June 2, 1999).  M-
99- 05, Instructions on Complying with President*s Memorandum

of May 14, 1998, *Privacy and Personal Information in Federal Records*
(January 7, 1999).

 Biennial Privacy Act and Computer Matching Reports (June 1998). 
Privacy Act Responsibilities for Implementing the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (November
3, 1997). Finally, OMB*s Web site had other links to *Privacy Reference
Materials*:  Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990
and

the Privacy Act of 1974, 56 FR 18599 (April 23, 1991).

 Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100- 503, the
Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 54 FR 25818 (June
16, 1989).

 Guidance on Privacy Act Implementations of Call Detail Programs, 54 FR
12290 (April 20, 1987).  Privacy Act Guidance* Update (May 24, 1985). 
M- 83- 11, Guidelines on the Relationship Between the Privacy Act of

1974 and the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 48 FR 15556, April 11, 1983
(March 30, 1983).  Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974,
Supplemental Guidance, 40 FR 5674 (December 4, 1975).  Congressional
Inquiries which Entail Access to Personal Information

Subject to the Privacy Act (October 3, 1975).

Compliance with Privacy Act and Associated

Appendi x IV

Guidance Table 4 shows the questions asked on our survey of agencywide
practices, along with the agency responses that indicated compliance. For
some questions, the maximum number of agencies that needed to answer the
question is less than 25 (e. g., certain provisions of the act may not
apply to all agencies).

Tabl e 4: Responses to Agencywide Practices Survey Compliance questions
Compliance

Does your agency account for disclosures of personal information outside
of your agency? (Q. 3) 25 of 25 Has your agency issued a Federal Register
notice explaining the reasons for exemption? (Q12) 24 of 24 Under the
Privacy Act, does your agency have a Data Integrity Board? (Q35) a 13 of
13 Has your agency established rules in the Code of Federal Regulations
for determining if the individual is the 24 of 25 subject of a record? (Q.
1.1) Has your agency established rules in the Code of Federal Regulations
for handling requests for access to records? 24 of 25

(Q. 1.2) Has your agency established rules in the Code of Federal
Regulations for amending records? (Q1.3) 24 of 25 Has your agency
established rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for fees for copying
records? (Q1.4) 24 of 25 Since October 1, 1998, has any court ruled that
your agency violated any provision of the Privacy Act or found an 22 of 25
employee criminally liable under the act? (Q16) During fiscal years 1998*
2001, did your agency review the routine use disclosures associated with
each system of

21 of 25 records to ensure that uses were compatible with the original
purpose? (Q10) Does your agency have procedures to ensure personnel with
access to systems of records or who are engaged in 20 of 25

developing procedures are adequately trained? (Q. 5) Before [new] systems
become operational, does your agency have written policies or procedures
for determining 17 of 25 whether that personal information is needed?
During fiscal years 1998* 2001, did your agency review each system of
records containing exemptions to

19 of 24 determine whether such exemptions were still needed? (Q. 13)
During calendar year 2001, did your agency review each ongoing matching
program to help ensure the

9 of 13 requirements of the Privacy Act and OMB guidance have been met?
(Q. 33) Has your agency established rules of conduct for persons who are
involved in operations and maintenance of

16 of 24 records? (Q. 2.2) Has your agency established rules of conduct
for persons involved in design and development of systems of

15 of 24 records? (Q. 2.1) During fiscal year 2001, did your agency review
each system of records* Federal Register notice to ensure that it 15 of 25

accurately described the system of records? (Q. 8) Source: GAO analysis of
survey data. a There are other compliance questions that ask about
agencies* Data Integrity Boards, but the questions are open ended, and the
answers cannot be given a compliance rating.

Table 5 shows the questions asked on our survey of agencies* systems of
records along with the calculated compliance scores. 1 For questions that
ask *how* an agency does something, we calculated compliance scores based
on their responses to the multiple choice answers embedded in the

question. We have included the multiple choice responses in parentheses
following those questions.

Tabl e 5: Responses to System of Records Survey Compliance questions
Compliance

Since October 1, 2000, did any persons, without authorization, read,
alter, disclose, or destroy any personal 100 percent information in the
information system? (Q. 17) Has your agency promulgated a final rule under
the Administrative Procedure Act that explains why your agency

100 percent considers the exemption necessary? (Q. 55) Has any court ruled
that your agency violated any provision of the Privacy Act or found an
employee criminally

100 percent liable regarding this system of records? (Q. 48) a How does
your agency ensure the personal information that is used in making a
determination about an individual

95 percent is complete, accurate, relevant and timely? (do not ensure
completeness, accuracy, relevance and timeliness of the information;
verify with other records within the agency; verify with other federal
agencies* records; verify with subject individuals; verify with state and
local agencies; verify with private- sector records (e. g., banks, former
employer); system of records is exempt from this requirement; no actions
are taken; other (please specify); information is not used in making a
determination) (Q. 36)

Is there a plan for the security and privacy of the automated information
system? (Q. 12) 94 percent Are there disposition schedules for the records
in this system of records? (Q. 49) 91 percent Has your agency issued a
Federal Register notice containing the following information for this
system of records?

89 percent (name and location of the system of records; categories of
individuals covered; routine uses that apply; policies and procedures to
store, retrieve, retain, and dispose of records; how individuals can find
out if the system contains a record pertaining to them, ask for access to
any records pertaining to them, or contest the accuracy of any records
pertaining to them) (Q. 2)

Would your agency be able to account for all disclosures of individuals*
records to organizations or individuals 86 percent outside your agency?
(Q. 42) During fiscal years 2000 or 2001, did your agency review the
performance of [a contractor operating a system of

85 percent records on behalf of the agency] to help ensure that it was
complying with the Privacy Act? (Q. 31) b During fiscal years 1998* 2001,
did your agency review the exemptions to determine whether these
exemptions

85 percent were still needed? (Q. 54) b During fiscal years 1999* 2001,
did your agency assess the threats, vulnerabilities, and effectiveness of
current or 82 percent

proposed safeguards? (Q. 13) 1 For some compliance questions, a sufficient
number of agencies did not respond at a rate that allows us to be 95
percent confident that the true value is within +-10 percentage points of
estimated percentages. Unless otherwise noted, we deleted those questions
from our analysis and from the table.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Compliance questions Compliance

For individuals who are asked to supply personal information, does your
agency inform them, in writing, of the 82 percent authority for requesting
the information, how the information may be used, whether providing the
information is mandatory or voluntary, and the consequences of not
providing the information? (Q. 35)

During fiscal years 1998* 2001, did your agency review the routine use
disclosures to ensure they continue to be 82 percent compatible with the
purpose they were collected for? (Q. 37) During fiscal year 2000 or 2001,
did your agency review the Federal Register notice to ensure that it was
accurate?

79 percent (Q. 4) Before disclosing records to a nonfederal organization,
how does your agency ensure that the information in this

71 percent system is complete, accurate, relevant, and timely? (do not
ensure completeness, accuracy, relevance and timeliness of the
information; verify with other records within the agency; verify with
other federal agencies* records; verify with subject individuals; verify
with state and local agencies; comparison with private- sector records (e.
g., banks, former employer); system of records is exempt from this
requirement; no actions are taken; other (please specify) (Q. 40) b
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

a Agencies reported two systems of records where there were court rulings
that the agency violated the Privacy Act. However, the table indicates 100
percent compliance because these two systems of records were not in our
random sample and thus not weighted sufficiently to lower compliance below
100 percent.

b Confidence interval of +-15 percent.

Agency Views on OMB Guidance and

Appendi x V

Assistance On our survey, agencies responded to a series of questions
regarding OMB*s guidance and assistance to agencies, with most ratings
falling in the middle range.

OMB*s Overall Of 24 agencies responding, 1 11 reported that, overall,
OMB*s assistance on

Assistance to Agencies the act was *moderately effective** that is, a *3*
on a 5- point scale. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of responses.

Was Frequently Judged *Moderately Effective*

Figure 5: Agency Characterization of Overall Effectiveness of OMB
Assistance

1 One agency did not respond to this question.

OMB*s Written Sixteen agencies stated OMB*s written guidance was *mostly
complete** a

Guidance Was *2* on a 5- point scale. Of the remaining nine agencies,
seven assessed

OMB*s guidance lower (3 or 4), and two rated it higher as shown in the
Frequently Judged

figure below. For example, one agency reported it was *mostly incomplete*
*Mostly Complete*

and stated *Guidance [is needed] on safeguarding the security of
electronic records and the application of the Privacy Act to electronic
records.* None rated it as *incomplete.* In contrast, another agency
reported the guidance

was *mostly complete* and stated it was *very useful, especially the 1975
PA guidelines and the 1989 guidance on computer matching.*

Figure 6: Agency Characterization of Completeness of OMB*s Written
Guidance

OMB*s Responses to Ten of the 15 agencies that rated OMB*s timeliness in
responding to agency

Agency Questions questions about the act chose *moderately timely* a *2*
on a 4- point scale.

Of the remaining 5 agencies, 4 assessed OMB*s timeliness lower (3 or 4),
Were Frequently

and 1 rated it higher (1), as shown in figure 7. In comments regarding
this Judged *Moderately

issue, an agency official stated, *In general, greater emphasis needs to
be Timely*

placed on the Privacy Act by OMB. In particular, additional human
resources should be devoted to fulfill OMB*s responsibilities under
subsection (v) of the Act, additional written guidance is needed, and oral
guidance should be more readily accessible and obtainable.*

Figure 7: Agency Characterization of Timeliness of OMB*s Response to
Questions

With regard to the usefulness of OMB*s responses to agency questions about
the Privacy Act, 8 of 15 answering the question reported that OMB*s

responses were *moderately useful** a *2* on a 4- point scale, as shown in
figure 8.

Figure 8: Agency Characterization of Usefulness of OMB*s Response to
Questions

OMB*s Assistance on Under the Privacy Act, agencies* Federal Register
notices for systems of

Agencies* Federal

records are to contain the name and location of the system of records, the
routine uses of the personal information in the system, the categories of

Register Notices Was persons covered, and procedures for persons to ask
for access to any

Frequently Judged records pertaining to them.

*Moderately Timely* We asked about the timeliness of OMB*s assistance in
writing Federal Register notices. Most agencies (18 of 25) did not ask for
OMB assistance

and thus did not answer the question. Among the 7 that did answer the

question, 5 agencies reported that OMB*s assistance was *moderately
timely** a *2* on the 4- point scale. (See fig. 9.)

Figure 9: Agency Characterization of Timeliness of OMB*s Assistance with
Federal Register Notices

We also asked agencies to assess the usefulness of OMB*s assistance in
writing Federal Register notices using a 4- point extent scale, where *1*
was *very useful* and *4* was *slightly or not useful.* Among those seven
agencies that answered the question, three reported that OMB*s assistance
was *moderately useful.* (See fig. 10.)

Figure 10: Agency Characterization of Usefulness of OMB*s Assistance with
Federal Register Notices

Agency Resources and Structure Devoted to

Appendi x VI

Implementation of the Privacy Act In response to our survey questions
aimed at determining agency resources devoted to implementation of the
Privacy Act, most agencies were unable to answer many of the questions. Of
25 agencies responding, 7 were able to report the number of employees in
their agency who would spend half or more of their time on implementation
of the act. They ranged from 3

employees each at the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) to 28 employees at the Department of Health and Human
Services. Among the remaining 18 agencies, 10 reported that no employees
would spend half or more of their time on implementation, and 8 agencies
reported that they *do not know* how many employees in their agency would
spend half or more of their time on implementation of the act.

Five agencies were able to report the number of full- time equivalent
(FTE) staff years spent on Privacy Act implementation. The remaining 20
agencies said it was *too difficult to estimate* how many FTE staff years
they will spend on the act*s implementation.

We also inquired about agencies* structures for implementing the act. More
than half the agencies reported having a decentralized structure to
implement their Privacy Act systems of records. (See fig. 11.)
*Decentralized* was defined in the survey as *Most actions under the
Privacy Act are implemented at the component, bureau, or field office
level.* *Centralized* was defined as *Most actions under the Privacy Act
are implemented at headquarters (HQ).*

Figure 11: Centralization of Implementation of Privacy Act

The person responsible for implementing the Privacy Act was located in the
office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at seven agencies, the
General Counsel at three agencies, and Public Affairs at two agencies; the
remainder were in other offices. One agency suggested that for agencies to
better implement the act, *Have all Privacy Officers report to CIOs in
their bureaus.* Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3506 (a)
and (g)), the agency CIO is required to be responsible for carrying out
responsibilities for compliance with the Privacy Act.

Comments from the Office of Management

Appendi x VII

and Budget Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text
appear at the end of this appendix. See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3. See comment 4. See comment 5.

See comment 6. See comment 7.

See comment 8. See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.

See comment 12.

See comment 13.

GAO Comments 1. We disagree with OMB that the statements made in our
report *border on the reckless and irresponsible.* Our survey results
represent 25 departments* and agencies* compliance with a broad range of
Privacy

Act provisions. These 25 cover a broad cross section of small, medium, and
large departments and agencies. In most cases, agencies* Privacy Act
officers* who had an average of 8 years of experience in that position*
responded to our survey of agencywide practices; we achieved a 100 percent
response rate on this survey. Our survey concerning a sample representing
a population of 2,400 systems of record was completed by the person the
agency deemed as most knowledgeable of that system of records; we achieved
a 96 percent response rate. These surveys are extremely comprehensive and
were developed over many months with assistance from agency privacy

officials. Moreover, to help verify the accuracy of agencies* answers
related to compliance, we randomly selected a sample of agency responses
to the surveys and asked officials to provide documentation or additional
narrative explanations to support their answers. We then invited key
senior Privacy Act officials from all 25 agencies to discuss their
responses at an all- day forum, where they had a chance to provide
additional context for us before the preparation of the draft report.
Overall, we consider this report to be a comprehensive and accurate source
of information on agencies* implementation of the Privacy Act.

2. We disagree that our draft report, by treating the various provisions
of the act as equally important, understates the extent of agency privacy
protections. In passing the Privacy Act, Congress enacted a framework
designed to protect personal privacy. Accordingly, we based our
conclusions on the results of a comprehensive analysis of agency
compliance with a broad range of requirements.

As OMB suggests, we added to the body of our report a statement that
agencies reported 100 percent compliance with our question concerning
unauthorized access or disclosure of personal information contained in
information systems. However, this response should not be interpreted as
meaning that agencies fully complied with the Privacy Act*s prohibitions
against unauthorized disclosures. The question OMB

cites is focused on information security controls for protecting personal
information contained in information systems* which would not include the
estimated 31 percent of systems of records that were exclusively paper
records. Further, in response to another question, agencies acknowledged
that in an estimated 21 percent of their systems

of records, they did not have the means to detect unauthorized intrusions
into their information systems, drawing into question whether agencies
have adequate means to determine whether or not there have been
unauthorized disclosures. As discussed in our report, we have reported
extensive weaknesses in information security across government.

3. We disagree that there is inconsistency between the survey responses on
accounting for disclosures. The two questions asked were similar, but not
identical. Therefore, there should be no expectation that the

results would be identical. In our agency survey, we asked agencies a
general question on whether they account for disclosures outside the
agency for all systems of records. In the system of records survey, we
asked agencies about their ability to account for all disclosures for a

specific system of records that we randomly selected from the population.

4. Regarding our questions on maintaining complete, accurate, and relevant
information, there are again major differences in these two questions that
explain the differing results. One question asks how

agencies maintain complete, accurate, and relevant information for

internal agency determinations about an individual, while the other asks
how this is done when providing information to a nonfederal organization.
We do, however, agree with OMB that the readers of our

report should see the multiple- choice answers that agencies could choose
from in answering these questions and on which our compliance results are
based. We have added them to the report.

5. Regarding OMB*s concerns about questions that ask about particular
activities undertaken in specific time frames, we note that these
questions were directly derived from OMB*s guidance to agencies. For
example, we derived the question concerning reviews of Federal Register
notices regarding systems of records directly from OMB*s

guidance. We support OMB in believing that such reviews help ensure that
the public is informed of the existence and uses of systems of records and
is thus able to access and amend records if necessary.

6. We agree with OMB regarding the question concerning review of training
practices in fiscal year 2001. We removed this question from the report.

7. We disagree with OMB that there is a fundamental flaw in the draft
report resulting from what is described as *the extremely limited nature
and scope of the facts that GAO has actually reviewed.* Our survey results
represent 25 departments* and agencies* compliance with a broad range of
Privacy Act provisions. Our surveys are extremely comprehensive, were
developed over many months with assistance

from agency privacy officials, and represent the population of 2,400
systems of records covering a broad cross section of small, medium, and
large departments and agencies. Moreover, to help verify the accuracy of
agencies* answers related to compliance, we randomly selected a sample of
agency responses to the surveys and asked officials to provide
documentation or additional narrative explanations to support their
answers. We then invited key senior Privacy Act

officials from all 25 agencies to discuss their responses at an all- day
forum where they had a chance to provide additional context for us before
the preparation of the draft report. Again, we consider this report to be
a comprehensive and accurate source of information on agencies*
implementation of the Privacy Act.

8. One of the first steps that we took when beginning this review of the
Privacy Act was to contact agency Inspectors General for reports on the
act. We found only a few reports, which were of limited scope. In
addition, we acknowledge that GAO has not performed a

comprehensive review of the Privacy Act in many years. However, as
discussed in the draft report, we have issued reports over the past 3
years that raised concerns with the adequacy of selected OMB guidance
concerning privacy. These reports contain outstanding

recommendations to strengthen guidance, which OMB has not yet implemented.

9. One of the first steps we took when beginning this review was to
examine the Privacy Act Overview from the Department of Justice and to
meet with the Justice officials who prepared the overview. We used the
overview, court decisions, and our interview with Justice officials to
help frame some of the survey questions. However, a detailed analysis of
these cases was not within the scope of our review nor necessary to
address the objectives of our study. OMB appropriately pointed out that

the individuals involved have the right to seek judicial review of
agencies* compliance with the act; we discuss this point in the background
section of our report.

10. In doing this work, our intention was to depict a governmentwide
picture of agency compliance with the Privacy Act and OMB guidance.
Although we present these results in the aggregate, they are based on
reviews of 24 individual agencies and a representative sample of 2, 400
systems of records. We will be providing OMB officials with additional
details so that they can follow up with the specific agencies involved

and ensure that deficiencies are corrected. 11. OMB*s 1999 review did not
require agencies to review all systems of

records. Instead, OMB directed agencies to focus on ** the most probable
areas of out- of- date information, so that reviews will have the maximum
impact in ensuring that system of records notices remain accurate and
complete.* The difference in the scope of OMB*s review (selective) and
ours (random sample) explains why agencies reported different results.

12. OMB commented that our draft report does not make clear what actions
they should take because it does not point to any specific *deficiencies
in compliance* at specific agencies or programs. The draft report contains
specific compliance findings related to a broad range of Privacy Act
requirements. As previously discussed, this information is presented in
aggregate form; we will be providing additional details to help OMB in its
improvement efforts.

Regarding OMB guidance, the draft report identifies many of the specific
deficiencies that agencies noted. We did not include the detailed
deficiencies that agencies identified in response to OMB*s January 1999
memorandum because OMB already had this information. Other specific
deficiencies from our survey were previously shared with OMB officials.
Nevertheless, we will be providing OMB officials with all the additional
details on the specific deficiencies in OMB guidance that agencies
identified in both the OMB and the GAO studies.

13. We disagree with OMB*s comment that we never initiated a formal review
with OMB, never requested the opportunity to interview OMB staff, and
declined an invitation to review OMB activities. Consistent with GAO
policy, we held an entrance conference with OMB on May 30, 2001, to
initiate this review. At that meeting, we interviewed the key OMB
officials who have Privacy Act responsibilities and asked them questions
covering every aspect of this engagement. During the course of our review,
we offered to share drafts of our surveys with OMB officials to obtain
their views and suggestions; they declined this

opportunity. Since then we have been in frequent communication with OMB
privacy officials to keep them apprised of our progress and, as OMB*s
comment acknowledges, shared with them the draft briefing slides that
contained the interim results from our surveys. We met with them to
discuss the briefing slides on November 14, 2002, and January

7, 2003. Consistent with GAO policy, we also held an exit conference on
April 3, 2003, to share our preliminary results and conclusions with OMB.
At that meeting, OMB officials provided us with oral comments and stated
that they would provide us with additional comments in writing; these
written comments were not provided. As we began summarizing the results
from our surveys and forum, we had several conversations with OMB
officials, including a meeting on May 28, 2003, to discuss their concerns
about our methodology and preliminary findings; many of the concerns were
addressed as we drafted the final report.

Overall, OMB had many opportunities to provide us with additional evidence
to support its view that our results and conclusions were inaccurate;
however, it provided little additional information except to take issue
with our study approach. In addition, we note that although we informed
OMB of our survey approach early in our study, it chose to take issue with
the approach only after we had obtained results.

Appendi x VIII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Alan Stapleton, (202)
512- 3418 Staff

In addition to the person named above, Bill Bates, Barbara Collier, Robert
Acknowledgments

Crocker, John Dale, Neil Doherty, Wilfred Holloway, William Isrin, Michael
Jarvis, Tuong- Vi La, Alison Martin, Luann Moy, David Noone, David
Plocher, Mark Ramage, Terry Richardson, Theresa Roberson, and Warren Smith
made key contributions to this report.

(310358)

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Based on responses from 25 selected agencies to GAO surveys, compliance
with Privacy Act requirements and OMB guidance is generally high in many
areas, but it is uneven across the federal government. For example, GAO
used agency responses to estimate 100 percent compliance with the
requirement to issue a rule explaining to the public why personal
information is exempt from certain provisions of the act (see table). In
contrast, GAO estimates 71 percent compliance with the requirement that
personal information should be complete, accurate, relevant, and timely
before it is disclosed to a nonfederal organization. As a result of this
uneven compliance, the government cannot adequately assure the public that
all legislated individual privacy rights are being protected.

Agency senior privacy officials acknowledge the uneven compliance but
report a number of difficult implementation issues in a rapidly changing
environment. Of these issues, privacy officials gave most importance to
the need for further OMB leadership and guidance. Although agencies are
not generally dissatisfied with OMB*s guidance on the Privacy Act, they
made specific suggestions regarding areas in which additional guidance is
needed,

such as the act*s application to electronic records. Besides these gaps in
guidance, additional issues included the low agency priority given to
implementing the act and insufficient employee training on the act. If
these implementation issues and the overall uneven compliance are not
addressed, the government will not be able to provide the public with
sufficient

assurance that all legislated individual privacy rights are adequately
protected.

Examples of Compliance with Requirements of the Privacy Act Requirement
Compliance estimates

Issuing a rule that explains why the agency considers an exemption
necessary 100% compliance Being able to account for all disclosures of
individual*s records outside the agency

86% compliance; 14% not in compliance Reviewing routine disclosures of
information outside the agency to ensure that these continue to be
compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected
(fiscal years 1998* 2001)

82% compliance; 18% not in compliance Before disclosing records to a
nonfederal organization, ensuring that the information is complete,
accurate, relevant, and timely

71% compliance; 29% not in compliance Source: GAO. Note: Agency response
rates to compliance surveys ranged from 76 to 100 percent. To give greater
assurance about the accuracy of agency responses, GAO verified a random
sample of responses.

The Privacy Act regulates how federal agencies may use the personal
information that individuals supply when obtaining government services or
fulfilling obligations* for example, applying

for a small business loan or paying taxes. GAO was asked to review, among
other things, agency compliance with the Privacy Act and related guidance
from the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). GAO recommends that the Director,
OMB, take a number of steps aimed at improving agency compliance with the
Privacy Act, including overseeing and

monitoring agency actions, reassessing the need for additional guidance to
agencies, and raising

agency awareness of the importance of the act. In providing comments, OMB
officials stated that the draft report does not

support the conclusion that, without improved compliance, the government
cannot ensure the protection of individual privacy rights; these officials
stated that GAO*s treatment of the various provisions of the act as
equally important in protecting privacy is flawed. GAO*s view, however, is
that Congress enacted a series of requirements designed, in total, to

protect privacy; accordingly, GAO based its conclusions on a comprehensive
analysis of agency compliance with a broad range of requirements.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 304. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512- 6240 or koontzl@ gao. gov.

Highlights of GAO- 03- 304, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate

June 2003

PRIVACY ACT

OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page i GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Contents

Page iii GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Contents Page iv GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency
Compliance

Page 1 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 3 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 4 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 5 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 6 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 7 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 8 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 9 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 10 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 11 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 12 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 13 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 14 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 15 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 16 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 17 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 18 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 19 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 20 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 21 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 22 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 23 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 24 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 25 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 26 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 27 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 28 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 29 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 30 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 31 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 32 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 33 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 34 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 35 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix I

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 40 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix II

Appendix II Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results

Page 41 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix II Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results

Page 42 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix II Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results

Page 43 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix II Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results

Page 44 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix II Summary of GAO*s February 2003 Privacy Forum on the Survey
Results

Page 45 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 46 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix III

Appendix III OMB Guidance on Privacy

Page 47 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 48 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Compliance with Privacy Act and Associated Guidance

Page 49 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix IV Compliance with Privacy Act and Associated Guidance

Page 50 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 51 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix V

Appendix V Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance

Page 52 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix V Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance

Page 53 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix V Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance

Page 54 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix V Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance

Page 55 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix V Agency Views on OMB Guidance and Assistance

Page 56 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 57 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Agency Resources and Structure Devoted to Implementation of
the Privacy Act

Page 58 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 59 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 60 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 61 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 62 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 63 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 64 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget Page 65
GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 66 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 67 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget Page 68
GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 69 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 70 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 71 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 72 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget

Page 73 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Page 74 GAO- 03- 304 OMB Leadership Needed to Improve Agency Compliance

Appendix VIII

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***