Freedom of Information Act: Agency Views on Changes Resulting	 
from New Administration Policy (03-SEP-03, GAO-03-981). 	 
                                                                 
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is based on principles of  
openness and accountability in government. FOIA establishes that 
federal agencies must provide the public with access to 	 
government information, unless the information falls into one of 
nine specifically exempted categories (for example, certain	 
information compiled for law enforcement purposes). However,	 
agencies can use their discretion to disclose information even if
it falls into one of the nine exempted categories; this is known 
as a "discretionary disclosure." At the beginning of a new	 
administration, the Attorney General traditionally issues a	 
policy memorandum regarding FOIA, including policy on		 
discretionary disclosure. Attorney General Ashcroft issued such a
memorandum on October 12, 2001, replacing Attorney General Reno's
1993 FOIA memorandum. GAO was asked to determine (1) to what	 
extent, if any, Department of Justice guidance for agencies on	 
FOIA implementation has changed as a result of the new policy;	 
(2) the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies regarding the new  
policy and its effects, if any; and (3) the views of FOIA	 
officers at 25 agencies regarding available FOIA guidance.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-981 					        
    ACCNO:   A08303						        
  TITLE:     Freedom of Information Act: Agency Views on Changes      
Resulting from New Administration Policy			 
     DATE:   09/03/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal law					 
	     Freedom of information				 
	     Government information				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Information disclosure				 

******************************************************************
** 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-03-981

                                       A

Letter

September 3, 2003 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Dear Mr. Leahy: Based on
principles of openness and accountability in government, the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies must provide the
public with access to government information (unless the information falls
into certain categories), thus enabling them to learn about government
operations and decisions. Under FOIA, nine categories of information are
specifically exempted from disclosure; examples of these categories
include trade secrets, personnel files, and certain information compiled
for law enforcement purposes. However, agencies can use their discretion
to disclose information, even if it falls into one of the nine exempted
categories; this is known as a *discretionary disclosure.*

Under FOIA, the U. S. Department of Justice is to encourage agency
compliance with the act. 1 Accordingly, the Attorney General has
traditionally issued a policy memorandum regarding FOIA at the beginning
of new administrations. Attorney General Ashcroft issued one such
memorandum on October 12, 2001, replacing Attorney General Reno*s 1993
FOIA memorandum.

The Ashcroft memorandum has two primary differences from the Reno
memorandum. Under the Ashcroft memorandum, agencies making decisions on
discretionary disclosure are directed to carefully consider such
fundamental values as national security, effective law enforcement,

and personal privacy; the Reno memorandum had established an overall
*presumption of disclosure* and promoted discretionary disclosures to
achieve *maximum responsible disclosure.* Second, according to the
Ashcroft memorandum, Justice will defend an agency*s withholding
information if the agency has a *sound legal basis* for such withholding
under FOIA, while under the Reno policy, Justice would defend an agency*s
withholding information only when the agency reasonably anticipated that
disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption.

1 5 U. S. C. S:552( e)( 5).

You requested that we review the effect of these changes in policy on FOIA
implementation. We agreed to determine (1) to what extent, if any, Justice
guidance for agencies on FOIA implementation has changed as a result of
the new policy; (2) the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies regarding
the new policy and its effects, if any; and (3) the views of FOIA officers
at 25 agencies regarding available FOIA guidance.

To fulfill the first objective, we analyzed Justice guidance on FOIA
implementation. To determine the views of FOIA officers regarding the new
policy and its effects, if any, and regarding the available FOIA guidance,
we administered Web- based and paper- based surveys. Our work was

conducted from October 2002 to April 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. On June 18, 2003, we provided a
briefing to your office on the results of our

work. The briefing slides 2 are included as appendix I. The purpose of
this report is to provide the published briefing slides for dissemination
to you and the Attorney General.

Results in Brief Changes have been made in Justice*s FOIA guidance to
refer to and reflect current policy as stated in the Ashcroft memorandum,
which superseded

the previous administration*s policy. These changes reflect the *careful
consideration* policy for making discretionary disclosures and the *sound
legal basis* standard for defending agencies that withhold information
based on FOIA exemptions.

When asked about views regarding the effects of the new policy, FOIA
officers most frequently reported that they did not notice changes in
their agencies* responses to FOIA requests when compared with previous
years. Of the FOIA officers surveyed, 48 percent reported that they did
not notice a change with regard to the likelihood of their agency making
discretionary disclosures. About one third of the FOIA officers reported a
decreased likelihood; and of these officers, 75 percent cited the new
policy as a top factor influencing the change. When FOIA officers were
asked about changes in the use of particular FOIA exemptions, 62 percent
reported no change with regard to the use of these exemptions. One fourth
of the officers reported a change in this regard. Among these respondents,
the

2 We have amended the briefing slides as of August 15, 2003, to include
technical corrections and clarifications.

two factors cited most frequently as influencing this change were the
policy stated in the Ashcroft memorandum and concerns over protecting
critical infrastructure information and other sensitive information
related to homeland security.

When FOIA officers were asked to consider all the existing FOIA guidance
and reference material according to various topic areas, the largest
proportion reported that guidance was adequate to a great or very great
extent (that is, at 4 or 5 on a 5- point scale, where 1 was *to no
extent*). In response to questions regarding specific Justice guidance,
such as that in

the FOIA Guide and the *FOIA Post* Web site (the Department of Justice*s
main vehicles of disseminating guidance), the largest proportion of FOIA
officers responding reported satisfaction with the guidance to a great or
very great extent.

In providing oral comments on a draft of this report, a Justice Office of
Information and Privacy (OIP) co- director and another staff member stated
that the department generally agreed with the report*s facts and
conclusions. The OIP officials also made a number of technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from the
date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney
General and the heads of other interested congressional committees. Copies
will be

made available to others on request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on our Web site at www. gao. gov.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)
512- 6240 or contact me by E- mail at koontzl@ gao. gov. Key contacts and
major contributors to this report are Thomas Beall, Elizabeth Bernard,

Barbara Collier, Katherine Howe, David Plocher, Jamie Pressman, and Joan
D. Winston.

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

Appendi xes Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New

Appendi x I

Administration Policy Freedom of Information Act: Agency Views on Changes
Resulting from New Administration Policy Briefing for staff of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary

June 18, 2003

Agenda * Introduction Objectives  Scope and Methodology  Results in
Brief  Background  Changes in Justice Guidance  Views of FOIA Officers
Regarding the New Policy  Views of FOIA Officers Regarding Available FOIA
Guidance  Conclusions  Agency Comments  Attachment 1: List of FOIA
Exemptions  Attachment 2: Views on FOIA Guidance Regarding Homeland
Security and Critical

Infrastructure Information  Attachment 3: 25 Agencies Surveyed

2

Introduction The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted in 1966.
Based on principles of openness and accountability in government, FOIA
establishes that federal agencies must provide the public with access to
government information, unless the information falls into nine
specifically exempted categories (see attachment 1). Agencies can use
their discretion to disclose information, even if it falls into one of the
nine exempted categories; this is known as a *discretionary disclosure.*

At the beginning of a new administration, the Attorney General has
traditionally issued a memorandum concerning FOIA policy.

On October 12, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a FOIA policy
memorandum (also referred to as the *new policy*), which superseded the
previous memorandum issued by Attorney General Reno in 1993. According to
Justice, the new policy has two primary differences from the Reno policy
(see next slide).

3

Introduction (cont*d)

Policy for discretionary disclosure

The Ashcroft memorandum stresses that when making decisions on
discretionary disclosure, agencies should carefully consider protecting
fundamental values held by our society, including safeguarding national
security, enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies, and
preserving personal privacy.

The Reno memorandum established an overall *presumption of disclosure* and
promoted discretionary disclosures to achieve *maximum responsible
disclosure* under FOIA.

Standard for defense of agency decisions to withhold information

According to the Ashcroft memorandum, Justice will defend an agency*s
withholding of information if the agency has a *sound legal basis* for
withholding information under FOIA.

Under the Reno policy, Justice would defend an agency*s withholding of
information only when the agency reasonably anticipated that disclosure
would harm an interest protected by an exemption (a *foreseeable harm*
standard).

4

Objectives As requested by the Ranking Member of the committee, our
objectives were to

1. determine to what extent, if any, Justice guidance for agencies on FOIA
implementation has changed as a result of the new policy;

2. determine the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies regarding the new
policy and its effects, if any; and

3. determine the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies regarding available
FOIA guidance.

We also agreed to obtain FOIA officer views regarding guidance on (1)
sensitive information related to homeland security and (2) critical
infrastructure information. The results of our inquiries on these two
areas are presented in attachment 2.

5

Scope and Methodology To determine the extent to which Justice guidance
for agencies on FOIA implementation has changed as a result of the new
policy, we analyzed Justice guidance on this topic, which is disseminated
by the following:

 Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview (also referred
to as the FOIA Guide ). We compared the most recent edition (2002) with
the previous one (2000).

 FOIA Post . We reviewed documents posted to Justice*s FOIA Post Web site
between October 2001 and April 2003 to identify any guidance related to
implementation of the new policy.

6

Scope and Methodology (cont*d) To determine FOIA officers* views regarding
the new policy and its effects, if any, and regarding available FOIA
guidance, we did the following:

 We administered a Web- based survey to 205 agency- identified
departmentlevel and component- level FOIA officers at 25 agencies. These
25 agencies, which were the subject of our previous FOIA reviews, 1 are
the 24 agencies specified under the 1990 Chief Financial Officer Act and
the Central Intelligence Agency. Together, these agencies handle over 97
percent of FOIA requests governmentwide (attachment 3 lists the agencies).

 Our survey had a response rate of 89 percent (183 out of 205 FOIA
officers) with at least 1 FOIA Officer responding from 23 of the 25
agencies.

 We did not independently verify responses to this survey. 1 U. S.
General Accounting Office, Information Management: Update on
Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Amendments, GAO- 02- 493 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 30, 2002).

7

Scope and Methodology (cont*d)  We also administered a paper- based
questionnaire to department- level FOIA

officers at the 25 agencies to obtain an agency response on any agency
actions taken to implement the new policy as well as agency guidance.

 We received 24 of 25 agency responses.  We did not independently verify
agency responses to the paper- based

questionnaire.  We performed our work from October 2002 to April 2003 in
accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. 8

Results in Brief: Objective 1

Changes to guidance

As a result of the new policy, Justice made the following changes to its
guidance for agencies on FOIA implementation:

 Changes in Justice guidance refer to and reflect the new policy, as
stated in the Ashcroft memorandum, which superseded the previous
administration*s policy:

 for discretionary disclosures, the *careful consideration* policy for
making discretionary disclosures and

 for Justice*s defense of agencies, the *sound legal basis* standard for
defending agencies that withhold information based on FOIA exemptions.

9

Results in Brief: Objective 2

Effect of new policy

FOIA officers reported most frequently that they did not notice changes
resulting from the new policy when compared with previous years.
Specifically:

 With regard to the likelihood of their agency making discretionary
disclosures, the largest proportion of respondents (88 of 183, or 48%)
reported that they noticed no change.

 About one third of FOIA officers reported a decreased likelihood (57 of
183, or 31%). Most of these (43 of 57, or 75%) cited the new policy as a
top factor influencing the change.

 12 FOIA officers (7% of the total) reported an increased likelihood, and
26 (14% of the total) reported *don*t know/ no basis to judge* or made no
response.

 With regard to the use of particular FOIA exemptions, about two- thirds
of FOIA officers responding (114 of 183, or 62%) reported that they
noticed no change.

 One fourth of FOIA officers did report a change (45 of 183, or 25% of
respondents). Most of these (28 of 45, or 62%) cited the new policy as a
top factor influencing the change.

10

Results in Brief: Objective 3

Available guidance

When asked to consider all the existing guidance and reference material
according to various topic areas, the largest proportion of responding
FOIA officers (ranging from 50% to 75%, depending on the particular type
of guidance) reported that guidance was adequate to a great or very great
extent (that is, at 4 or 5 on a 5- point scale, where 1 was *to no
extent*).

In response to questions regarding specific Justice guidance, such as that
in the

FOIA Guide and FOIA Post , the largest proportion of FOIA officers
responding reported satisfaction with guidance to a great or very great
extent; percentages ranged from 56 to 74 percent, depending on the
particular type of guidance.

11

Results in Brief: Agency Comments In providing oral comments on a draft of
this briefing, officials of Justice*s Office of Information and Privacy
(OIP) generally agreed with the facts and conclusions as presented. The
OIP officials also made a number of technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.

12

Background Enacted in 1966, FOIA generally provides that any person has a
right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records,
except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected
from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions (see attachment 1). There
are also FOIA exclusions for specific sensitive records held by law
enforcement agencies.

Agencies may use their administrative discretion to disclose information
in many cases when an exemption might otherwise be used to withhold
information.

FOIA amendments in 1974, 1976, 1986, and 1996 made procedural changes,
exempted or otherwise protected certain material from disclosure under
FOIA, created fee and fee waiver provisions, established timeliness and
reporting requirements, and required certain material to be made available
electronically.

Regarding fees, FOIA provides for three levels of fees that agencies may
assess in response to FOIA requests, depending on the categories of FOIA
requestors and the intended use of the information sought. A fee waiver
may be granted when it is determined that such action is *in the public
interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily
benefiting the general public.*

13

Background (cont*d) Under FOIA, the U. S. Department of Justice is to
encourage agency compliance with the act. Justice will also defend
agencies in court when litigation is filed against them on FOIA- related
matters.

Justice*s OIP has lead responsibility for providing FOIA guidance and
support for agencies, including training sessions and a counselor service.
The main vehicles of disseminating guidance are the following:

 FOIA Guide , OIP*s primary reference volume, contains an extensive
discussion of FOIA exemptions and procedures. Prepared by the attorney
staff of OIP, it is published every 2 years. May 2002 is the most recent
published edition.

 FOIA Post serves as a primary means of FOIA policy dissemination and is
OIP*s vehicle for communicating FOIA- related information to agency FOIA
personnel and others who are interested in the act*s administration.

14

Changes in Justice guidance Justice guidance on FOIA implementation has
been changed to incorporate the new policy set forth in the Ashcroft
memorandum.

Language referring specifically to the Reno memorandum was updated with
references to the Ashcroft memorandum. For example, in the 2000 edition of
the

FOIA Guide , the following sentence appears:  As a general rule, an
agency*s ability to make a discretionary disclosure of

exempt information in accordance with Attorney General Reno*s FOIA
memorandum will vary according to the nature of the FOIA exemption and the
underlying interests involved.

In the 2002 edition of the FOIA Guide , the sentence reads:  As a general
rule, an agency*s ability to make a discretionary disclosure of

exempt information as recognized in Attorney General Ashcroft*s FOIA
memorandum will vary according to the nature of the FOIA exemption and the
underlying interests involved.

15

Changes in Justice guidance In other cases, language referring to the Reno
memorandum and policy was deleted.

Other changes reflect the two main points of the Ashcroft memorandum in
which the Ashcroft policy differs from the Reno policy:

 Throughout the 2002 edition of the guide, references are deleted to the
*foreseeable harm* standard for withholding information and to the
*maximum responsible disclosure,* regarding discretionary disclosures.

 In the introduction to the 2002 FOIA Guide , language is added referring
to the Ashcroft policy, specifically, the *sound legal basis* standard for
withholding information and the need to carefully consider the interests
of public disclosure with protecting sensitive information.

Justice made changes to guidance on exemptions, fees, or fee waivers to
refer to the new policy, but the large majority of changes were to reflect
the development of new case law.

16

Views regarding effects of new policy

Awareness

Agencies and FOIA officers reported being aware of the Ashcroft
memorandum.  Of the 183 FOIA officers who responded, 161 (88%) stated
they had read the

Ashcroft FOIA memorandum.  Of the 24 agencies that responded, 20 (83%)
have distributed the Ashcroft

FOIA memorandum to agency FOIA personnel.  Approximately half of the
agencies (11 of 24) indicated that they prepared and

disseminated additional written guidance (e. g., directives, memorandums,
legal analyses) on implementing the new policy to their FOIA processors.

17

Views regarding effects of new policy

Areas of possible change

Agencies and FOIA officers most frequently reported that in comparison
with previous years, they did not notice changes in the following areas,
as a result of the new policy:

 likelihood of making discretionary disclosures,  use of exemptions, 
factors affecting FOIA processing, and  factors affecting administrative
appeals and litigation.

18

Views regarding effects of new policy

Discretionary disclosures

As shown in the chart, the largest proportion of FOIA officers responding
(88 of 183, or 48%), noticed no change compared with previous years in the
likelihood of their agency making discretionary disclosures under FOIA.

About one third of respondents noticed a decreased likelihood (combining
the 23% who reported a slight decrease and the 8% who reported a great or
moderate decrease).

a Other includes *don*t know/ no basis* and *no response.* b Increase
includes slight, moderate, and great increase. 19

Views regarding effects of new policy

Discretionary disclosures (cont*d) The approximately one- third of FOIA
officers who noticed a decreased likelihood of discretionary disclosures
totaled 57 (31% of 183). Among these, the following three factors were
cited most frequently as influencing this change:

 the policy stated in Attorney General Ashcroft*s FOIA memorandum (43 of
57, or 75%);

 concerns over privacy protections (38 of 57, or 67%); and  concerns
over protecting critical infrastructure information and other sensitive

information related to homeland security (37 of 57, or 65%). Of the 24
agencies responding, 20 (83%) indicated that they had not further
specified or elaborated on criteria or factors to be used in deciding
whether to make a discretionary release of information under the policy.

20

Views regarding effects of new policy

Exemptions

FOIA officers were asked, *Subsequent to Attorney General Ashcroft*s FOIA
memorandum, have you noticed any changes in the use of particular FOIA
exemptions when compared to previous years?*

Of the 183 FOIA officers who responded, 114 (62%) said they did not notice
a change in application of exemptions compared with previous years. (See
chart.)

21

Views regarding effects of new policy

Exemptions (cont*d) One fourth of the respondents (45 of 183, or 25%)
indicated that they had noticed a change in the use of particular
exemptions over previous years. These respondents most frequently cited
the following two factors as influencing the change in the use of FOIA
exemptions:

 the policy stated in the Ashcroft memorandum (28 of 45, or 62%) and 
concerns over protecting critical infrastructure information and other
sensitive

information related to homeland security (23 of 45, or 51%). (Attachment 2
provides further discussion of our results regarding critical
infrastructure information and other sensitive information related to
homeland security.)

22

Views regarding effects of new policy

FOIA processing

FOIA officers were asked to select the top 4 factors, from a list of 13,
that influence various FOIA processing areas: the time required to process
FOIA requests, the number of pending FOIA requests, and the age of pending
FOIA requests.

About 3 percent or less of responding FOIA officers reported that the new
policy was one of four top factors influencing each of the FOIA processing
areas:

 time required to process FOIA requests (6 of 178, or 3%);  number of
pending FOIA requests (3 of 179, or 2%); and  age of pending FOIA
requests (2 of 179, or 1%). Of the factors suggested as influential, FOIA
officers most frequently selected scope or complexity of requests, volume
of responsive material, and resources available.

23

Views regarding effects of new policy

Administrative appeals and litigation

FOIA officers were asked to select the top 4 factors, from a list of 16,
that influence the likelihood of requestors filing administrative appeals
and litigation.

About 3 percent of responding FOIA officers reported that the new policy
was among the top factors in influencing

 likelihood of requestors filing administrative appeals (6 of 179, or 3%)
and  likelihood of requestors filing litigation (6 of 179, or 3%). Of the
factors suggested as influential, FOIA officers most frequently selected
requester concerns about the use of particular exemptions and requester
concerns over the extent of redaction in material supplied in response to
requests.

24

Views Regarding Available Guidance

Areas of guidance

When asked to consider existing guidance and reference material for areas
cited in the table below, the largest proportion of FOIA officers
responding reported that guidance was adequate to a great or very great
extent (that is, at 4 or 5 on a 5- point scale, where 1 was *to no
extent*). The table shows responses according to specific areas of
guidance.

Percentage and number of respondents ( n = 183) who reported that guidance
was adequate on a 5- point scale

Great or very Moderate

Small or no Guidance to determine great extent a extent extent a Other b

Whether an exemption applies to information requested under FOIA 75% (138)
14% (25) 3% (6) 8% (14)

Whether to make a discretionary disclosure 50% (92) 24% (44) 15% (27) 11%
(20) Whether to waive part or all of applicable fees 57% (104) 20% (37)
13% (23) 10% (19) Whether the records being requested under FOIA were for
commercial use 58% (107) 20% (37) 12% (22) 9% (17)

Whether the party making a FOIA request was an educational or
noncommercial scientific institution 60% (109) 20% (36) 11% (21) 9% (17)

Whether the party making a FOIA request was a representative of the news
media 62% (114) 16% (30) 13% (24) 8% (15)

Whether disclosure of the requested information was in the public interest
when a fee waiver was being requested 51% (94) 24% (44) 15% (27) 10% (18)

Source: GAO. Note: Percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
a Combined responses. b *Other* includes *don*t know/ no basis* and *no
response.*

25

Views Regarding Available Guidance

Sources of guidance

In response to questions regarding specific sources of Justice guidance,
the largest proportion of FOIA officers responding reported satisfaction
with guidance to a great or very great extent. The table shows responses
according to specific sources of guidance.

Percentage and number of respondents ( n = 183) reporting satisfaction
with guidance on a 5- point scale

Great or very Small or no

Guidance great extent a Moderate extent extent a Other b

The Department of Justice*s FOIA Guide 74% (135) 11% (20) 7% (13) 8% (15)

The FOIA guidance that Justice has issued via FOIA Update and now issues
via FOIA Post 63% (115) 17% (31) 9% (17) 11% (20)

The FOIA training that the Department of Justice provides 63% (116) 11%
(21) 7% (12) 19% (34)

Other information resources that Justice provides via OIP*s Web site 56%
(102) 19% (34) 8% (15) 17% (32)

Source: GAO. a Combined responses. b *Other* includes *don*t know/ no
basis* and *no response.*

26

Conclusions As a result of the new policy, changes to Justice guidance for
agencies on FOIA implementation have been largely limited to reflecting
the two points of difference between the Ashcroft and Reno memorandums:
that is, the policy for discretionary disclosure and the standard for
defense of agency decisions to withhold information.

Overall, FOIA officers are aware of the Ashcroft memorandum; however, most
of them report that they have not noticed an impact on the application of
exemptions and the likelihood of agencies making discretionary
disclosures.

The largest proportion of FOIA officers responding consider that the
guidance they have received from the Department of Justice is adequate to
a great or very great extent.

27

Agency Comments On June 12, 2003, one of the co- directors and other staff
members of OIP provided oral comments on a draft of these briefing slides.
These officials generally agreed with the facts and conclusions as
presented. The OIP officials also made a number of technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.

28

Attachment 1: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions

Exemption number Matters that are exempt from FOIA

(1) (A) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive
order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive
order. (2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency. (3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other
than section 552b of this title),

provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from
the public in such a manner as to leave no

discretion on the issues, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to

be withheld. (4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and

privileged or confidential. (5) Inter- agency or intra- agency memorandums
or letters which would not be available by law

to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. (6)
Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Source: 5 U. S. C. S:
552( b)( 1) through (b)( 6).

29

Attachment 1: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions (cont*d)

Exemption number Matters that are exempt from FOIA

(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings; (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or
impartial adjudication; (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (D) could reasonably be expected
to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a

state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution
which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a
record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in
the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful
national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a
confidential source; (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigations or

prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention of the law; or (F) could reasonably be
expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. (8)
Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports
prepared by, on behalf

of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or
supervision of financial institutions.

(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps,
concerning wells. Source: 5 U. S. C. S: 552( b)( 7) through (b)( 9).

30

Attachment 2: Homeland Security and Critical Infrastructure Information

When asked to respond to questions regarding the adequacy of guidance
related to (1) sensitive information related to homeland security and (2)
critical infrastructure information, the largest proportion of FOIA
officers did not respond to the questions or reported that they had no
basis to judge whether the guidance and reference materials were adequate.

The following guidance on information related to homeland security is
available:  On March 19, 2002, the Assistant to the President and Chief
of Staff issued a

memorandum to all heads of federal departments and agencies instructing
them to safeguard information regarding weapons of mass destruction and
other sensitive documents related to homeland security.

 Accompanying this memorandum was a joint memorandum issued by the
National Archives* Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) and the
Department of Justice*s Office of Information and Privacy (OIP). The
memorandum provided additional guidance on safeguarding homeland security
information including the instruction to make determinations on disclosure
of such information under FOIA in accordance with the Ashcroft memorandum.

31

Attachment 2: Homeland Security and Critical Infrastructure Information
(cont*d)

The Homeland Security Act (enacted November 25, 2002) exempts certain
critical infrastructure information from disclosure under FOIA. In the
Federal Register of April 15, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security
proposed for public comment procedures for protecting critical
infrastructure information.

The act also includes provisions for the development of guidance on
protecting sensitive homeland security information; however, this guidance
was not available at the time of our review.

32

Attachment 2: Homeland Security and Critical Infrastructure Information
(cont*d)

A large proportion of FOIA officers (40 to 45 percent) either did not
respond to the questions or reported that they had no basis to judge
whether guidance and reference materials were adequate in the areas of
guidance shown in the table. The remainder of the responses were
distributed as shown below.

Total number of respondents = 183 Extent to which guidance and reference
materials are adequate Very

Don t know/ no great

Great Moderate

Small No

basis to judge or Area of guidance

extent extent extent extent extent no response

Whether unclassified records contain sensitive information

8% 15%

18% 12%

5% 42%

related to homeland security (14)

(28) (33)

(22) (9)

(77) Whether to disclose sensitive information related

11% 14%

20% 10%

4% 40%

to homeland security (20)

(26) (37)

(19) (8)

(73) Whether material is critical

8% 11%

17% 15%

5% 43%

infrastructure information (14)

(21) (32)

(28) (9)

(79) Whether to disclose critical

10% 13%

17% 12%

3% 45%

infrastructure information (18)

(23) (32)

(22) (6)

(82) Source: GAO. Note: Percentages may not equal 100 percent due to
rounding.

33

Attachment 3: 25 Agencies Surveyed  Central Intelligence Agency

 Department of the Treasury  Department of Agriculture

 Department of Veterans Affairs  Department of Commerce

 Environmental Protection Agency  Department of Defense

 Federal Emergency Management Agency  Department of Education

(now part of Department of Homeland Security)  Department of Energy

 General Services Administration  Department of Health and Human

 National Aeronautics and Space Services

Administration  Department of Housing and Urban

 National Science Foundation Development

 Department of the Interior  Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Department of Justice  Office of Personnel Management

 Department of Labor  Small Business Administration

 Department of State  Social Security Administration

 Department of Transportation  U. S. Agency for International
Development

(310380) 34

(310380)

GAO*s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 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 GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

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
e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

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

September 2003 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Agency Views on Changes
Resulting from New Administration Policy

GAO- 03- 981

Contents Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Appendix

Appendix I: Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy 5

Abbreviations

DOJ Department of Justice FOIA Freedom of Information Act ISOO Information
Security Oversight Office OIP Office of Information and Privacy

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.

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is based on principles of openness
and accountability in

government. FOIA establishes that federal agencies must provide the public
with access to government information, unless the information falls into
one of nine specifically exempted categories (for example, certain
information compiled for

law enforcement purposes). However, agencies can use their discretion to
disclose information even if it falls into one of the nine exempted
categories; this is known

as a *discretionary disclosure.* At the beginning of a new administration,
the Attorney General traditionally issues a policy memorandum regarding
FOIA,

including policy on discretionary disclosure. Attorney General Ashcroft
issued such a memorandum on October 12, 2001, replacing Attorney General
Reno*s 1993 FOIA memorandum.

GAO was asked to determine (1) to what extent, if any, Department of
Justice guidance for agencies on FOIA implementation has changed as a
result of the new policy; (2) the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies
regarding the new policy

and its effects, if any; and (3) the views of FOIA officers at 25 agencies
regarding available FOIA guidance.

Following the issuance of the Ashcroft memorandum, Justice changed its
guidance for agencies on FOIA implementation to refer to and reflect the
two primary policy changes in the memorandum. First, under the Ashcroft
memorandum, agencies making decisions on discretionary disclosure are
directed to carefully consider such fundamental values as national
security, effective law enforcement, and personal privacy; the Reno
memorandum had established an overall *presumption of disclosure* and
promoted discretionary disclosures to achieve *maximum responsible
disclosure.* Second, according to the Ashcroft memorandum, Justice will
defend an agency*s withholding information if the agency has a *sound
legal basis* for such withholding under FOIA; under the Reno policy,
Justice would defend an agency*s withholding information only when the
agency reasonably foresaw that disclosure would harm an interest protected
by an exemption.

Regarding effects of the new policy, FOIA officers most frequently
reported that they did not notice changes in their agencies* responses to
FOIA requests compared to previous years. For example, as shown in the
figure, of the FOIA officers surveyed, 48 percent reported that they did
not notice a change with regard to the likelihood of their agencies*
making discretionary disclosures. About one third of the FOIA officers
reported a decreased

likelihood; of these FOIA officers, 75 percent cited the new policy as a
top factor influencing the change.

When FOIA officers were asked to consider all the existing FOIA guidance
and reference material according to various topic areas, the largest
proportion (ranging from 50 percent to 75 percent, depending on the type
of guidance) reported that guidance was adequate to a great or very great
extent (that is, at 4 or 5 on a 5- point scale, where 1 was *to no
extent*).

In commenting on a draft of this report, Justice officials generally
agreed with its contents.

Effect of Ashcroft Policy on Likelihood of Agencies* Making Discretionary
Disclosures

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 981. To view the full product,
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- 981, a report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate

September 2003

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration Policy

Page i GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Page 1 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Page 3 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Page 4 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Page 5 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 6 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 7 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 8 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 9 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 10 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 11 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 12 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 13 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 14 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 15 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 16 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 17 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 18 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 19 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 20 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 21 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 22 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 23 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 24 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 25 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 26 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 27 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 28 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 29 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 30 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 31 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 32 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 33 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 34 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 35 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 36 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 37 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

Appendix I Agency Views on Changes Resulting from New Administration
Policy

Page 38 GAO- 03- 981 Freedom of Information Act

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. ***