Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show Importance of 
Improvement Plans (14-FEB-07, GAO-07-491T).			 
                                                                 
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal	 
agencies must provide the public with access to government	 
information, enabling them to learn about government operations  
and decisions. To help ensure proper implementation, the act	 
requires that agencies annually report specific information about
their FOIA operations, such as numbers of requests received and  
processed and median processing times. In addition, a recent	 
Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to improve	 
their FOIA operations, including decreasing backlogs. GAO was	 
asked to testify on the results of its study on FOIA processing  
and agencies' improvement plans. The draft report on the study is
currently out for comment at the agencies involved (and is thus  
subject to change). For the study, GAO reviewed status and trends
of FOIA processing at 25 major agencies as reflected in annual	 
reports, as well as the extent to which improvement plans contain
the elements emphasized by the Executive Order. To do so, GAO	 
analyzed the 25 agencies' annual reports and improvement plans.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-491T					        
    ACCNO:   A65971						        
  TITLE:     Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends Show       
Importance of Improvement Plans 				 
     DATE:   02/14/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Executive orders					 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Federal Information Processing Standards		 
	     Federal law					 
	     Freedom of information				 
	     Government information				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Reports management 				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-491T

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]The FOIA Process at Federal Agencies
          * [4]The Privacy Act Also Provides Individuals with Access Rights
          * [5]Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation
          * [6]Annual FOIA Reports Were Established by 1996 Amendments
          * [7]Executive Order Required Agencies to Take Several Actions to

     * [8]Status of FOIA Processing Appears Similar to Previous Years,

          * [9]Not All Data from USDA's Farm Service Agency Are Reliable, b
          * [10]Except for SSA, Increases in Requests Received and Processed
          * [11]Most Requests Are Granted in Full
          * [12]Processing Times Vary, but Broad Generalizations Are Limited
          * [13]Agency Pending Cases Continue to Increase
          * [14]No Regular Mechanism Is in Place for Aggregating Annual Repo

     * [15]Agency Improvement Plans Generally Included Areas of Improve

          * [16]All Agencies Addressed Reducing Backlog, and Most Set Measur
          * [17]Most Agencies Plan to Increase Public Dissemination of Recor
          * [18]Most Agency Plans Included Improving Status Communications w
          * [19]Agencies Generally Plan to Rely on FOIA Reference Guides to

     * [20]Annual Reporting and Selected Improvement Plans Could Be Fur
     * [21]Contact and Acknowledgments
     * [22]Attachment I: Scope and Methodology
     * [23]Attachment II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
     * [24]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [25]Order by Mail or Phone

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing
on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and agency
efforts to comply with this important legislation. Generally speaking,
FOIA1 establishes that federal agencies must provide the public with
access to government information, thus enabling them to learn about
government operations and decisions. Specific requests by the public for
information through the act have led to disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse,
and wrongdoing in the government, as well as the identification of unsafe
consumer products, harmful drugs, and serious health hazards.

To help ensure appropriate implementation, the act requires that agencies
provide annual reports on their FOIA operations to the Attorney General;
these reports include information as specified in the act, such as how
many requests were received and processed in the previous fiscal year, how
many requests were pending at the end of the year, and the median times
that agencies or their components took to process requests.2 In addition,
the President issued an Executive Order in December 2005 that is aimed at
improving agencies' disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.3 Among
other things, this order required each agency to review its FOIA
operations and develop improvement plans;4 by June 14, 2006, each agency
was to submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) summarizing the results of the
agency's review and including a copy of its improvement plan. These plans
were to include specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables, by which
the agency head is to evaluate the agency's success in implementing the
plan.

The Executive Order directs agencies in their FOIA improvement plans to
focus on ways to

1 5 U.S.C. S 552.

2 In an ordered set of values, the median is a value below and above which
there is an equal number of values; if there is no one middle number, it
is the arithmetic mean (average) of the two middle values.

3 Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2005).

4 More information on the Executive Order's requirements is provided in
the section on Background.

           o eliminate or reduce any backlog of requests;
           o increase reliance on public dissemination of records including
           through Web sites;
           o improve communications with requesters about the status of their
           requests; and
           o increase public awareness of FOIA processing.

As requested, in my remarks today, I will discuss two topics: (1) the
status of agencies' processing of FOIA requests as reflected in their
annual reports for fiscal years 2002 through 2005, highlighting any trends
in these reports since 2002, and (2) to what extent the agency FOIA
improvement plans contain the elements emphasized by the Executive Order.

My discussion is based on ongoing work that we performed in response to a
request from the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Finance, and Accountability (House Committee on Government
Reform), for which you are now a co-requester. The draft report on this
work is currently out for comment; accordingly, some of the information
may be revised before the report is finalized.

For the review described in the draft report, we described statistics on
the processing of FOIA requests based on our analysis of annual report
data for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 from 25 major agencies (herein we
refer to this scope as governmentwide). We examined data from the 24
agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the Central
Intelligence Agency. However, we eliminated one of the 25 agencies--the
Department of Agriculture--from our analysis because one of its major
components reported that not all its data were reliable. As a result, our
statistical analysis for this report was based on data from a total of 24
agencies' annual reports.5

To determine to what extent the agency plans contain the elements
emphasized by the order, we analyzed the plans for all 25 agencies to
determine whether they addressed each area of improvement that was
emphasized and contained goals and timetables for each.6 We evaluated the
versions of plans submitted as of December 15, 2006. We also reviewed the
Executive Order itself, implementing guidance issued by OMB and the
Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by Justice, and our past
work in this area. A more detailed description of our scope and
methodology is provided in attachment 1.

5 We assessed the reliability of the information contained in the annual
reports of selected agencies. See attachment I for more discussion of data
reliability.

All work on which this testimony was based was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

Based on data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from
2002 to 2005,7 the public continued to submit more requests for
information from the federal government through FOIA. Despite increasing
the numbers of requests processed, many agencies did not keep pace with
the volume of requests that they received. As a result, the number of
pending requests carried over from year to year has been steadily
increasing; further, the rate of increase is growing. Agency reports also
show great variations in the median times to process requests (less than
10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at others).
However, the ability to determine trends in processing times is limited by
the form in which these times are reported: that is, in medians only,
without averages (that is, arithmetical means)8 or ranges. Although
medians have the advantage of providing representative numbers that are
not skewed by a few outliers, it is not statistically possible to combine
several medians to develop broader generalizations (as can be done with
arithmetical means).9 This limitation on aggregating data impedes the
development of broader pictures of FOIA operations, which could be useful
in monitoring efforts to improve processing and reduce the increasing
backlog of requests, as intended by the Executive Order. Finally, in the
absence of a requirement that data from the annual reports be summarized
or aggregated (a function that the Department of Justice, in its FOIA
oversight role, has performed in the past), the public and the Congress
have no consistent means of obtaining a governmentwide picture of FOIA
processing.

6 Two GAO analysts independently analyzed each agency's plan to determine
if it contained objective goals and timetables for each of the four
elements. When the analysts disagreed, they discussed the reasons for
their differences and arrived at a consensus.

7 Data from the Department of Agriculture were omitted because data from a
major component were not reliable.

8 The arithmetic mean is the sum of all the members of a list of numbers
divided by the number of items in the list. In contrast, a median is a
number dividing the higher half of a population from the lower half. (The
median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the
values from lowest to highest and finding the middle one.)

The 25 agencies submitted improvement plans that mostly included goals and
timetables addressing the four areas of improvement emphasized by the
Executive Order. Based on the results of agencies' reviews of their FOIA
operations, the plans also included other improvement activities (such as
improving automation and increasing staff training) that are expected to
contribute to achieving the goals of the Executive Order. Out of 25 plans,
20 provided goals and timetables in all four areas. In some cases,
agencies did not set goals for a given area because they determined that
they were already strong in that area. For the first area of improvement,
reducing backlog, all agencies with reported backlog planned activities
aimed at such reduction, and (with minor exceptions)10 all included both
measurable goals and milestones. Except for one department, agencies also
generally set milestones for the other areas of improvement emphasized by
the Executive Order (that is, increasing public dissemination, improving
status communications, and increasing public awareness of FOIA
processing); for example, to increase public awareness, agencies generally
planned to ensure that their FOIA reference guides were comprehensive and
up to date. The exception was the Department of the Treasury, whose review
and plan addressed only activities to reduce backlog, omitting the other
three areas of improvement.

9 Unlike means, medians cannot be added and averaged. Deriving a median
for two sets of numbers, for example, requires knowing each number in both
sets. The medians of the original sets are not relevant, as only the
source data can be used to derive a new median.

10 One agency had minimal backlog; another set no target date for its
goal, but it met the goal the end of 2006.

In our draft report, we suggest that the Congress consider improving the
usefulness of the agency annual FOIA reports by requiring agencies to
report additional statistics. We are also recommending that Justice
provide aggregated statistics and summaries of the annual reports and that
selected agencies enhance their improvement plans.

Background

FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and
information, on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability
in government. Before the act (originally enacted in 1966), an individual
seeking access to federal records had faced the burden of establishing a
right to examine them. FOIA established a "right to know" standard for
access, instead of a "need to know," and shifted the burden of proof from
the individual to the government agency seeking to deny access.

FOIA provides the public with access to government information either
through "affirmative agency disclosure"--publishing information in the
Federal Register or the Internet, or making it available in reading
rooms--or in response to public requests for disclosure. Public requests
for disclosure of records are the best known type of FOIA disclosure. Any
member of the public may request access to information held by federal
agencies, without showing a need or reason for seeking the information.

Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act
prescribes nine specific categories of information that are exempt from
disclosure: for example, trade secrets and certain privileged commercial
or financial information, certain personnel and medical files, and certain
law enforcement records or information (attachment II provides the
complete list). In denying access to material, agencies may cite these
exemptions. The act requires agencies to notify requesters of the reasons
for any adverse determination (that is, a determination not to provide
records) and grants requesters the right to appeal agency decisions to
deny access.

In addition, agencies are required to meet certain time frames for making
key determinations: whether to comply with requests (20 business days from
receipt of the request), responses to appeals of adverse determinations
(20 business days from receipt of the appeal), and whether to provide
expedited processing of requests (10 calendar days from receipt of the
request). Congress did not establish a statutory deadline for making
releasable records available, but instead required agencies to make them
available promptly.

The FOIA Process at Federal Agencies

Although the specific details of processes for handling FOIA requests vary
among agencies, the major steps in handling a request are similar across
the government. Agencies receive requests, usually in writing (although
they may accept requests by telephone or electronically), which can come
from any organization or member of the public. Once received, the request
goes through several phases, which include initial processing, searching
for and retrieving responsive records, preparing responsive records for
release, approving the release of the records, and releasing the records
to the requester. Figure 1 is an overview of the process, from the receipt
of a request to the release of records.

Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process

During the initial processing phase, a request is logged into the agency's
FOIA system, and a case file is started. The request is then reviewed to
determine its scope, estimate fees, and provide an initial response to the
requester (in general, this simply acknowledges receipt of the request).
After this point, the FOIA staff begins its search to retrieve responsive
records. This step may include searching for records from multiple
locations and program offices. After potentially responsive records are
located, the documents are reviewed to ensure that they are within the
scope of the request.

During the next two phases, the agency ensures that appropriate
information is to be released under the provisions of the act. First, the
agency reviews the responsive records to make any redactions based on the
statutory exemptions. Once the exemption review is complete, the final set
of responsive records is turned over to the FOIA office, which calculates
appropriate fees, if applicable. Before release, the redacted responsive
records are then given a final review, possibly by the agency's general
counsel, and then a response letter is generated, summarizing the agency's
actions regarding the request. Finally, the responsive records are
released to the requester.

Some requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for
specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the
appropriate office. Other requests may require more extensive processing,
depending on their complexity, the volume of information involved, the
need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that have relevant
subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the need for a
FOIA officer to review and redact information in the responsive material,
the need to communicate with the requester about the scope of the request,
and the need to communicate with the requester about the fees that will be
charged for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be waived).11

Specific details of agency processes for handling requests vary, depending
on the agency's organizational structure and the complexity of the
requests received. While some agencies centralize processing in one main
office, other agencies have separate FOIA offices for each agency
component and field office. Agencies also vary in how they allow requests
to be made. Depending on the agency, requesters can submit requests by
telephone, fax, letter, or e-mail or through the Web. In addition,
agencies may process requests in two ways, known as "multitrack" and
"single track." Multitrack processing involves dividing requests into two
groups: (1) simple requests requiring relatively minimal review, which are
placed in one processing track, and (2) more voluminous and complex
requests, which are placed in another track. In contrast, single-track
processing does not distinguish between simple and complex requests. With
single-track processing, agencies process all requests on a
first-in/first-out basis. Agencies can also process FOIA requests on an
expedited basis when a requester has shown a compelling need or urgency
for the information.

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

As agencies process FOIA requests, they generally place them in one of
four possible disposition categories: grants, partial grants, denials, and
"not disclosed for other reasons." These categories are defined as
follows:

           o Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in
           full.
           o Partial grants: Agency decisions to withhold some records in
           whole or in part, because such information was determined to fall
           within one or more exemptions.
           o Denials: Agency decisions not to release any part of the
           requested records because all information in the records is
           determined to be exempt under one or more statutory exemptions.
           o Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release
           requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than
           statutory exemptions from disclosing records. The categories and
           definitions of these "other" reasons for nondisclosure are shown
           in table 1.

Table 1: "Other" Reasons for Nondisclosure

Category                  Definition                                       
No records                The agency searched and found no record          
                             responsive to the request.                       
Referrals                 The agency referred records responsive to the    
                             request to another agency.                       
Request withdrawn         The requester withdrew the request.              
Fee-related reasons       The requester refused to commit to pay fees (or  
                             other reasons related to fees).                  
Records not reasonably    The requester did not describe the records       
described                 sought with sufficient specificity to allow them 
                             to be located with a reasonable amount of        
                             effort.                                          
Not a proper FOIA request The request was not a FOIA request for one of    
                             several procedural reasons.                      
Not an agency record      The requested record was not within the agency's 
                             control.                                         
Duplicate request         The request was submitted more than once by the  
                             same requester.                                  

Source: Department of Justice.

When a FOIA request is denied in full or in part, or the requested records
are not disclosed for other reasons, the requester is entitled to be told
the reason for the denial, to appeal the denial, and to challenge it in
court.

The Privacy Act Also Provides Individuals with Access Rights

In addition to FOIA, the Privacy Act of 197412 includes provisions
granting individuals the right to gain access to and correct information
about themselves held by federal agencies. Thus the Privacy Act serves as
a second major legal basis, in addition to FOIA, for the public to use in
obtaining government information. The Privacy Act also places limitations
on agencies' collection, disclosure, and use of personal information.

Although the two laws differ in scope, procedures in both FOIA and the
Privacy Act permit individuals to seek access to records about
themselves--known as "first-party" access. Depending on the individual
circumstances, one law may allow broader access or more extensive
procedural rights than the other, or access may be denied under one act
and allowed under the other. Consequently, the Department of Justice's
Office of Information and Privacy issued guidance that it is "good policy
for agencies to treat all first-party access requests as FOIA requests (as
well as possibly Privacy Act requests), regardless of whether the FOIA is
cited in a requester's letter." This guidance was intended to help ensure
that requesters receive the fullest possible response to their inquiries,
regardless of which law they cite.

12 5 U.S.C. S 552a.

In addition, Justice guidance for the annual FOIA report directs agencies
to include Privacy Act requests (that is, first-party requests) in the
statistics reported. According to the guidance, "A Privacy Act request is
a request for records concerning oneself; such requests are also treated
as FOIA requests. (All requests for access to records, regardless of which
law is cited by the requester, are included in this report.)"

Although FOIA and the Privacy Act can both apply to first-party requests,
these may not always be processed in the same way as described earlier for
FOIA requests. In some cases, little review and redaction (see fig. 1) is
required, for example, for a request for one's own Social Security
benefits records. In contrast, various degrees of review and redaction
could be required for other types of first-party requests: for example,
files on security background checks would need review and redaction before
being provided to the person who was the subject of the investigation.

Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation

OMB and the Department of Justice both have roles in the implementation of
FOIA. Under various statutes, including the Paperwork Reduction Act,13 OMB
exercises broad authority for coordinating and administering various
aspects of governmentwide information policy. FOIA specifically requires
OMB to issue guidelines to "provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all
agencies."14 OMB issued this guidance in April 1987.15

13 44 U.S.C. SS 3501-3521.

14 This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act of
1986 (Pub. L. 99-570).

15 See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and
Guidelines, 52 FR 10011 (Mar. 27, 1987), effective April 27, 1987. Also in
1987, the Department of Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees when
requests are determined to be in the public interest. Under the
guidelines, requests for waivers or reduction of fees are to be considered
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the public interest and
the requester's commercial interests.

The Department of Justice oversees agencies' compliance with FOIA and is
the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Specifically,
Justice's requirements under the act are to

           o make agencies' annual FOIA reports available through a single
           electronic access point and notify Congress as to their
           availability;
           o in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required
           annual agency reports, so that all reports use common terminology
           and follow a similar format; and
           o submit an annual report on FOIA litigation and the efforts
           undertaken by Justice to encourage agency compliance.

Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Information and Privacy
has lead responsibility for providing guidance and support to federal
agencies on FOIA issues. This office first issued guidelines for agency
preparation and submission of annual reports in the spring of 1997. It
also periodically issues additional guidance on annual reports as well as
on compliance, provides training, and maintains a counselors service to
provide expert, one-on-one assistance to agency FOIA staff. Further, the
Office of Information and Privacy also makes a variety of FOIA and Privacy
Act resources available to agencies and the public via the Justice Web
site and on-line bulletins (available at [26]www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html
).

Annual FOIA Reports Were Established by 1996 Amendments

In 1996, the Congress amended FOIA to provide for public access to
information in an electronic format (among other purposes). These
amendments, referred to as e-FOIA, also required that agencies submit a
report to the Attorney General on or before February 1 of each year that
covers the preceding fiscal year and includes information about agencies'
FOIA operations.16 The following are examples of information that is to be
included in these reports:

           o number of requests received, processed, and pending;
           o median number of days taken by the agency to process different
           types of requests;
           o determinations made by the agency not to disclose information
           and the reasons for not disclosing the information;
           o disposition of administrative appeals by requesters;
           o information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA
           requests; and
           o full-time-equivalent staffing information.

16 5 U.S.C.S 552(e).

In addition to providing their annual reports to the Attorney General,
agencies are to make them available to the public in electronic form. The
Attorney General is required to make all agency reports available on line
at a single electronic access point and report to Congress no later than
April 1 of each year that these reports are available in electronic form.
(This electronic access point is [27]www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_6.html .)

In 2001, in response to a congressional request, we prepared the first in
a series of reports on the implementation of the 1996 amendments to FOIA,
starting from fiscal year 1999.17 In these reviews, we examined the
contents of the annual reports for 25 major agencies (shown in table 2).18
They include the 24 major agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers
Act, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and, until 2003, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 2003, the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which incorporated FEMA, led to a
shift in some FOIA requests from agencies affected by the creation of the
new department, but the same major component entities are reflected in all
the years reviewed.

17 GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001).

18 GAO, Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-02-493 (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); Information Management: Update on Freedom of
Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
18, 2004); and Information Management: Implementation of the Freedom of
Information Act, GAO-05-648T (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2005).

Table 2: Agencies Reviewed

Agency                                        Abbreviation 
Agency for International Development          AID          
Central Intelligence Agency                   CIA          
Department of Agriculture a                   USDA         
Department of Commerce                        DOC          
Department of Defense                         DOD          
Department of Education                       ED           
Department of Energy                          DOE          
Department of Health and Human Services       HHS          
Department of Homeland Security b             DHS          
Federal Emergency Management Agency b         FEMA         
Department of Housing and Urban Development   HUD          
Department of Interior                        DOI          
Department of Justice                         DOJ          
Department of Labor                           DOL          
Department of State                           State        
Department of the Treasury                    Treas        
Department of Transportation                  DOT          
Department of Veterans Affairs                VA           
Environmental Protection Agency               EPA          
General Services Administration               GSA          
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA         
National Science Foundation                   NSF          
Nuclear Regulatory Commission                 NRC          
Office of Personnel Management                OPM          
Small Business Administration                 SBA          
Social Security Administration                SSA          

Source: GAO.

a USDA was not included in our statistical analysis for this report
because data from one of its major components were found to be unreliable.

b FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005, FEMA was part of DHS.

Our previous reports included descriptions of the status of reported FOIA
implementation, including any trends revealed by comparison with earlier
years. We noted general increases in requests received and processed, as
well as growing numbers of pending requests carried over from year to
year.

In addition, our 2001 report disclosed that data quality issues limited
the usefulness of agencies' annual FOIA reports and that agencies had not
provided online access to all the information required by the act as
amended in 1996. We therefore recommended that the Attorney General direct
the Department of Justice to improve the reliability of data in the
agencies' annual reports by providing guidance addressing the data quality
issues we identified and by reviewing agencies' report data for
completeness and consistency. We further recommended that the Attorney
General direct the department to enhance the public's access to government
records and information by encouraging agencies to make all required
materials available electronically. In response, the Department of Justice
issued supplemental guidance, addressed reporting requirements in its
training programs, and continued reviewing agencies' annual reports for
data quality. Justice also worked with agencies to improve the quality of
data in FOIA annual reports.

Executive Order Required Agencies to Take Several Actions to Improve FOIA
Operations

On December 14, 2005, the President issued an Executive Order setting
forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA
administration.19 Briefly, FOIA requesters are to receive courteous and
appropriate services, including ways to learn about the status of their
requests and the agency's response, and agencies are to provide ways for
requesters and the public to learn about the FOIA process and publicly
available agency records (such as those on Web sites). In addition, agency
FOIA operations are to be results oriented: agencies are to process
requests efficiently, achieve measurable improvements in FOIA processing,
and reform programs that do not produce appropriate results.

To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that
agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their FOIA programs,
and that agencies establish Requester Service Centers and Public Liaisons
to ensure appropriate communication with requesters. The Chief FOIA
Officers were directed to conduct reviews of the agencies' FOIA operations
and develop improvement plans to ensure that FOIA administration was in
accordance with applicable law as well as with the policy set forth in the
order. By June 2006, agencies were to submit reports that included the
results of their reviews and copies of their improvement plans. The order
also instructed the Attorney General to issue guidance on implementation
of the order's requirements for agencies to conduct reviews and develop
plans. Finally, the order instructed agencies to report on their progress
in implementing their plans and meeting milestones as part of their annual
reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and required agencies to account
for any milestones missed.

19 Executive Order 13392.

In April 2006, the Department of Justice posted guidance on implementation
of the order's requirements for FOIA reviews and improvement plans.20 This
guidance suggested a number of areas of FOIA administration that agencies
might consider in conducting their reviews and developing improvement
plans. (Examples of some of these areas are automated tracking
capabilities, automated processing, receiving/responding to requests
electronically, forms of communication with requesters, and systems for
handling referrals to other agencies.) To encourage consistency, the
guidance also included a template for agencies to use to structure the
plans and to report on their reviews and plans.21 The improvement plans
are posted on the Justice Web site at
[28]www.usdoj.gov/oip/agency_improvement.html .

In a July 2006 testimony, we provided preliminary results of our analyses
of the improvement plans for the 25 agencies in our review that were
submitted as of the end of June; in our testimony we focused on how the
plans addressed reducing or eliminating backlog.22 We testified that a
substantial number of plans did not include measurable goals and
timetables that would allow agencies to measure and evaluate the success
of their plans. Several of the plans were revised in light of our
testimony, as well as in response to feedback to agencies from the
Department of Justice in its FOIA oversight role.

20 Department of Justice, Executive Order 13,392 Implementation Guidance
(posted Apr. 27, 2006). [29]www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm

21 Also included in this guidance was a set of questions and answers on
implementing the order, as well as supplemental guidance on preparing the
annual FOIA reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. These are to include
reports on agencies' progress in implementing their plans and improving
their FOIA activities.

Status of FOIA Processing Appears Similar to Previous Years, but Limitations in
Annual Report Data Present Challenges

The data reported by 24 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 2002 to
2005 reveal a number of general trends. (Data from USDA are omitted from
our statistical analysis, because we determined that data from a major
USDA component were not reliable.)23 For example, the public continued to
submit more requests for information from the federal government through
FOIA, but many agencies, despite increasing the numbers of requests
processed, did not keep pace with this increased volume. As a result, the
number of pending requests carried over from year to year has been
steadily increasing. However, our ability to make generalizations about
processing time is limited by the type of statistic reported (that is, the
median). Taking steps to improve the accuracy and form of annual report
data could provide more insight into FOIA processing.

Not All Data from USDA's Farm Service Agency Are Reliable, but Its Improvement
Plan Provides Opportunity to Address This Weakness

We omitted data from USDA's annual FOIA report because we determined that
not all these data were reliable. Although some USDA components expressed
confidence in their data, one component, the Farm Service Agency, did not.
According to this agency's FOIA Officer, portions of the agency's data in
annual reports were not accurate or complete. This is a significant
deficiency, because the Farm Service Agency reportedly processes over 80
percent of the department's total FOIA requests. Currently, FOIA
processing for the Farm Service Agency is highly decentralized, taking
place in staff offices in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, 50 state
offices, and about 2,350 county offices. The agency FOIA officer told us
that she questioned the completeness and accuracy of data supplied by the
county offices. This official stated that some of the field office data
supplied for the annual report were clearly wrong, leading her to question
the systems used to record workload data at field offices and the field
office staff's understanding of FOIA requirements. She attributed this
condition to the agency's decentralized organization and to lack of
management attention, resources, and training. Lacking accurate data
hinders the Farm Service Agency from effectively monitoring and managing
its FOIA program.

22 GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Preliminary Analysis of Processing
Trends Shows Importance of Improvement Plans, GAO-06-1022T (Washington,
D.C.: July 26, 2006).

23 These data were presented in our testimony on our preliminary analysis,
GAO-06-1022T.

The Executive Order's requirement to develop an improvement plan provides
an opportunity for the Farm Service Agency to address its data reliability
problems. More specifically, Justice's guidance on implementing the
Executive Order refers to the need for agencies to explore improvements in
their monitoring and tracking systems and staff training. USDA has
developed an improvement plan that includes activities to improve FOIA
processing at the Farm Service Agency that are relevant to the issues
raised by the Farm Service Agency's FOIA Officer, including both
automation and training. The plan sets goals for ensuring that all agency
employees who process or retrieve responsive records are trained in the
necessary FOIA duties, as well as for determining the type of automated
tracking to be implemented. According to the plan, an electronic tracking
system is needed to track requests, handle public inquiries regarding
request status, and prepare a more accurate annual FOIA report. In
addition, the Farm Service Agency plans to determine the benefit of
increased centralization of FOIA request processing.

However, the plan does not directly address improvements to data
reliability. If USDA does not also plan for activities, measures, and
milestones to improve data reliability, it increases the risk that the
Farm Service Agency will not produce reliable FOIA statistics, which are
important for program oversight and meeting the act's goal of providing
visibility into government FOIA operations.

Except for SSA, Increases in Requests Received and Processed Are Generally
Slowing

The numbers of FOIA requests received and processed continue to rise, but
except for one case--SSA--the rate of increase has flattened in recent
years. For SSA, we present statistics separately because the agency
reported an additional 16 million requests in 2005, dwarfing those for all
other agencies combined, which together total about 2.6 million. SSA
attributed this rise to an improvement in its method of counting requests
and stated that in previous years, these requests were undercounted.
Further, all but about 38,000 of SSA's over 17 million requests are simple
requests for personal information by or on behalf of individuals.

Figure 2 shows total requests reported governmentwide for fiscal years
2002 through 2005, with SSA's share shown separately.24 This figure shows
the magnitude of SSA's contribution to the whole FOIA picture, as well as
the scale of the jump from 2004 to 2005.

24 Because of the undercount in previous years, including SSA's statistics
in governmentwide data obscures year-to-year comparisons.

Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years
2002-2005

Figure 3 presents statistics omitting SSA on a scale that allows a clearer
view of the rate of increase in FOIA requests received and processed in
the rest of the government. As this figure shows, when SSA's numbers are
excluded, the rate of increase is modest and has been flattening: For the
whole period (fiscal years 2002 to 2005), requests received increased by
about 29 percent, and requests processed increased by about 27 percent.
Most of this rise occurred from fiscal years 2002 to 2003: about 28
percent for requests received, and about 27 percent for requests
processed. In contrast, from fiscal year 2004 to 2005, the rise was much
less: about 3 percent for requests received, and about 2 percent for
requests processed.

Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Omitting SSA,
Fiscal Years 2002-2005

According to SSA, the increases that the agency reported in fiscal year
2005 can be attributed to an improvement in its method of counting a
category of requests it calls "simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff."
From fiscal year 2002 to 2005, SSA's FOIA reports have consistently shown
significant growth in this category, which has accounted for the major
portion of all SSA requests reported (see table 3). In each of these
years, SSA has attributed the increases in this category largely to better
reporting, as well as actual increases in requests.

Table 3: Comparison of SSA's Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff to
Totals, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005

                                              Simple requests   Percentage of 
Fiscal Total requests Total requests   handled by non-FOIA total processed 
year         received      processed                 staff                 
2005       17,257,886     17,262,315            17,223,713            99.8 
2004        1,453,619      1,450,493             1,270,512            87.6 
2003          705,280        704,941               678,849            96.3 
2002          268,488        292,884               245,877            84.0 

Sources: SSA FOIA reports (self-reported data), GAO analysis.

SSA describes requests in this category as typically being requests by
individuals for access to their own records, as well as requests in which
individuals consent for SSA to supply information about themselves to
third parties (such as insurance and mortgage companies) so that they can
receive housing assistance, mortgages, disability insurance, and so on.25
According to SSA's FOIA report, these requests are handled by personnel in
about 1,500 locations in SSA, including field and district offices and
teleservice centers.26 Such requests are almost always granted,27
according to SSA, and most receive immediate responses. SSA has stated
that it does not keep processing statistics (such as median days to
process) on these requests, which it reports separately from other FOIA
requests (for which processing statistics are kept). However, officials
say that these are typically processed in a day or less.

According to SSA officials, they included information on these requests in
their annual reports because Justice guidance instructs agencies to treat
Privacy Act requests (requests for records concerning oneself) as FOIA
requests and report them in their annual reports.28 In addition, SSA
officials said that their automated systems make it straightforward to
capture and report on these simple requests. According to SSA, in fiscal
year 2005, the agency began to use automated systems to capture the
numbers of requests processed by non-FOIA staff, generating statistics
automatically as requests were processed; the result, according to SSA, is
a much more accurate count.

25 According to SSA officials, most of these simple requests are for
essentially the same types of information, such as copies of earnings
records and verifications of monthly benefit amounts or Social Security
numbers.

26 According to SSA, its field organization is decentralized to provide
services at the local level, and includes 10 regional offices, 6
processing centers, and approximately 1500 field offices.

27 Denials can occur in the case of discrepancies in the requests, such as
incorrect Social Security numbers, for example.

Besides SSA, agencies reporting large numbers of requests received were
the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Justice, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as shown in table 4. The rest
of agencies combined account for only about 5 percent of the total
requests received (if SSA's simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff are
excluded). Table 4 presents, in descending order of request totals, the
numbers of requests received and percentages of the total (calculated with
and without SSA's statistics on simple requests handled by non-FOIA
staff).

28 Justice's guidance defines the requests covered by the annual FOIA
reports as follows: "FOIA/PA request--Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act request. A FOIA request is generally a request for access to records
concerning a third party, an organization, or a particular topic of
interest. A Privacy Act request is a request for records concerning
oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA requests. (All requests
for access to records, regardless of which law is cited by the requester,
are included in this report.)"

Table 4: Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2005

                                                          Percentage of total 
                                      Percentage of total  including SSA line 
Agency                      Total including SSA line 1                   2 
SSA (all)              17,257,886                87.00                  -- 
SSA (excluding simple      38,602                   --                     
requests handled by                                                        
non-FOIA staff)                                                       1.48 
VA                      1,914,395                 9.65               73.17 
HHS                       222,372                 1.12                8.50 
DHS                       163,016                 0.82                6.23 
DOD                        81,304                 0.41                3.11 
Treas                      53,330                 0.27                2.04 
DOJ                        52,010                 0.26                1.99 
DOL                        23,505                 0.12                0.90 
EPA                        12,201                 0.06                0.47 
OPM                        12,085                 0.06                0.46 
DOT                         9,597                 0.05                0.37 
DOI                         6,749                 0.03                0.26 
State                       4,602                 0.02                0.18 
HUD                         4,227                 0.02                0.16 
SBA                         3,739                 0.02                0.14 
DOE                         3,729                 0.02                0.14 
CIA                         2,935                 0.01                0.11 
ED                          2,416                 0.01                0.09 
DOC                         1,804                 0.01                0.07 
GSA                         1,416                 0.01                0.05 
NASA                        1,229                 0.01                0.05 
NRC                           371                 0.00                0.01 
AID                           369                 0.00                0.01 
NSF                           273                 0.00                0.01 
Total including SSA    19,835,560                   --                  -- 
line 1                                                                     
Total including SSA     2,616,276                   --                  -- 
line 2                                                                     

Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. USDA data have been omitted, as
data from a major USDA component were determined to be unreliable.

Most Requests Are Granted in Full

Most FOIA requests in 2005 were granted in full, with relatively few being
partially granted, denied, or not disclosed for other reasons (statistics
are shown in table 5). This generalization holds with or without SSA's
inclusion. The percentage of requests granted in full was about 87
percent, which is about the same as in previous years. However, if SSA's
numbers are included, the proportion of grants dominates the other
categories--raising this number from 87 percent of the total to 98
percent. This is to be expected, since SSA reports that it grants the
great majority of its simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff, which
make up the bulk of SSA's statistics.

Table 5: Disposition of Processed Requests for Fiscal Year 2005

                           Statistics excluding SSAa Statistics including SSA
Disposition                   Number   Percentage       Number  Percentage 
Full grants                2,206,515         87.1   19,466,907        98.3 
Partial grants               102,079          4.0      102,354         0.5 
Denial                        19,864          0.8       20,318         0.1 
Not disclosed for other      204,491          8.1      205,685         1.0 
reasons                                                                    
Total                      2,532,949                19,795,264             

Source: FOIA annual reports for 2005 (self-reported data).

a We exclude all SSA statistics for this comparison rather than omitting
only simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff, because SSA's report does
not break out this category in its statistics on disposition.

Note: USDA data have been omitted, as data from a major USDA component
were determined to be unreliable. Percentages do not add up to 100 percent
because of rounding.

Three of the seven agencies that handled the largest numbers of requests
(HHS, SSA, and VA; see table 4) also granted the largest percentages of
requests in full, as shown in figure 4. Figure 4 shows, by agency, the
disposition of requests processed: that is, whether granted in full,
partially granted, denied, or "not disclosed for other reasons" (see table
1 for a list of these reasons).

Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests, by Agency (Fiscal Year 2005)

Note: Abbreviations are shown in table 2. USDA data have been omitted, as
data from a major USDA component were determined to be unreliable.

As the figure shows, the numbers of fully granted requests varied widely
among agencies in fiscal year 2005. Six agencies made full grants of
requested records in over 80 percent of the cases they processed (besides
the three already mentioned, these include Energy, OPM, and SBA).  In
contrast, 13 of 24 made full grants of requested records in less than 40
percent of their cases, including 3 agencies (CIA, NSF, and State) that
made full grants in less than 20 percent of cases processed.

This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been
evident in prior years as well.29 In many cases, the variance can be
accounted for by the types of requests that different agencies process.
For example, as discussed earlier, SSA grants a very high proportion of
requests because they are requests for personal information about
individuals that are routinely made available to or for the individuals
concerned. Similarly, VA routinely makes medical records available to
individual veterans, and HHS also handles large numbers of Privacy Act
requests. Such requests are generally granted in full. Other agencies, on
the other hand, receive numerous requests whose responses must routinely
be redacted. For example, NSF reported in its annual report that most of
its requests (an estimated 90 percent) are for copies of funded grant
proposals. The responsive documents are routinely redacted to remove
personal information on individual principal investigators (such as
salaries, home addresses, and so on), which results in high numbers of
"partial grants" compared to "full grants."

Processing Times Vary, but Broad Generalizations Are Limited

For 2005, the reported time required to process requests (by track) varied
considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median processing
times for fiscal year 2005. For agencies that reported processing times by
component rather than for the agency as a whole, the table indicates the
range of median times reported by the agency's components.

29 See GAO, Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 16, 2001), and Information Management: Update on Freedom of
Information Act Implementation Status, GAO-04-257 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
18, 2004).

Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2005, by Track

          Type of request processing track
Agency  Simple Complex Single Expedited 
AID         --      --     55        34 
CIA          7      68     --        -- 
DHS      16-61   3-242     --      2-45 
DOC         12      40     --         8 
DOD         16      85     --        -- 
DOE      5-106  10-170     --      1-12 
DOI       2-43   28-89     --      1-15 
DOJ      0-139  12-863     --     2-185 
DOL       6-30   14-60     --      2-18 
DOT       1-30  20-134     --      5-30 
ED          35      66     --        24 
EPA      13-32   4-166     --     8-109 
GSA         --      14     --        -- 
HHS      10-26  60-370  5-173    14-158 
HUD      21-65  35-160     --      9-70 
NASA        19      49     --        15 
NRC         12      75     --        20 
NSF         --      --     14        -- 
OPM         --      --     14         1 
SBA         --      --      7        -- 
SSA         15      39     10        17 
State       14     142     --       136 
Treas     2-86   3-251     --         1 
VA          --    1-60     --      1-10 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2005 (self-reported data).

Note: For agencies that reported processing times by component, the table
indicates the range of reported component median times. A dash indicates
that the agency did not report any median time for a given track in a
given year. USDA data have been omitted, as data from a major USDA
component were determined to be unreliable.

As the table shows, seven agencies had components that reported processing
simple requests in less than 10 days (these components are parts of the
CIA, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and the
Treasury); for each of these agencies, the lower value of the reported
ranges is less than 10. On the other hand, median time to process simple
requests is relatively long at some organizations (for example, components
of Energy and Justice, as shown by median ranges whose upper end values
are greater than 100 days).

For complex requests, the picture is similarly mixed. Components of four
agencies (EPA, DHS, the Treasury, and VA) reported processing complex
requests quickly--with a median of less than 10 days. In contrast, other
components of several agencies (DHS, Energy, EPA, HHS, HUD, Justice,
State, Transportation, and the Treasury) reported relatively long median
times to process complex requests, with median days greater than 100.

Six agencies (AID, HHS, NSF, OPM, SBA, and SSA) reported using
single-track processing. The median processing times for single-track
processing varied from 5 days (at an HHS component) to 173 days (at
another HHS component).

Our ability to make further generalizations about FOIA processing times is
limited by the fact that, as required by the act, agencies report median
processing times only and not, for example, arithmetic means (the usual
meaning of "average" in everyday language). To find an arithmetic mean,
one adds all the members of a list of numbers and divides the result by
the number of items in the list. To find the median, one arranges all the
values in the list from lowest to highest and finds the middle one (or the
average of the middle two if there is no one middle number). Thus,
although using medians provides representative numbers that are not skewed
by a few outliers, they cannot be summed. Deriving a median for two sets
of numbers, for example, requires knowing all numbers in both sets. Only
the source data for the medians can be used to derive a new median, not
the medians themselves.

As a result, with only medians it is not statistically possible to combine
results from different agencies to develop broader generalizations, such
as a governmentwide statistic based on all agency reports, statistics from
sets of comparable agencies, or an agencywide statistic based on separate
reports from all components of the agency.

In rewriting the FOIA reporting requirements in 1996, legislators declared
an interest in making them "more useful to the public and to Congress, and
[making] the information in them more accessible."30 However, the
limitation on aggregating data imposed by the use of medians alone impedes
the development of broader pictures of FOIA operations. A more complete
picture would be given by the inclusion of other statistics based on the
same data that are used to derive medians, such as means and ranges.
Providing means along with the median would allow more generalizations to
be drawn, and providing ranges would complete the picture by adding
information on the outliers in agency statistics. More complete
information would be useful for public accountability and for effectively
managing agency FOIA programs, as well as for meeting the act's goal of
providing visibility into government FOIA operations.

Agency Pending Cases Continue to Increase

In addition to processing greater numbers of requests, many agencies (10
of 24) also reported that their numbers of pending cases--requests carried
over from one year to the next--have increased since 2002. In 2002,
pending requests governmentwide were reported to number about 138,000,
whereas in 2005, about 200,000--45 percent more--were reported. In
addition, the rate of increase grew in fiscal year 2005, rising 24 percent
from fiscal year 2004, compared to 13 percent from 2003 to 2004. Figure 5
shows these results, illustrating the accelerating rate at which pending
cases have been increasing.

These statistics include pending cases reported by SSA, because SSA's
pending cases do not include simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff
(for which SSA does not track pending cases). As the figure shows, these
pending cases do not change the governmentwide picture significantly.

30 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives,
Report to accompany H.R. 3802, Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendments of 1996, H.R. 104-795 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 1996).

Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2005

Trends for individual agencies show mixed progress in reducing the number
of pending requests reported from 2002 to 2005--some agencies have
decreased numbers of pending cases, while others' numbers have increased.
Figure 6 shows processing rates at the 24 agencies (that is, the number of
requests that an agency processes relative to the number it receives).
Eight of the 24 agencies (AID, DHS, the Interior, Education, HHS, HUD,
NSF, and OPM) reported processing fewer requests than they received each
year for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005; 8 additional agencies
processed less than they received in two of these three years (Defense,
Justice, Transportation, GSA, NASA, NRC, SSA, and VA).

In contrast, two agencies (CIA and Energy) had processing rates above 100
percent in all 3 years, meaning that each made continued progress in
reducing their numbers of pending cases. Fourteen additional agencies were
able to make at least a small reduction in their numbers of pending
requests in 1 or more years between fiscal years 2003 and 2005.

Figure 6: Agency Processing Rate for 25 Agencies

Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2.

The agency processing rate is defined as the number of requests processed
in a given year compared with the requests received, expressed as a
percentage.

In 2002, FEMA data were used, and for 2003, 2004, and 2005, DHS data were
used.

No Regular Mechanism Is in Place for Aggregating Annual Report Data

Legislators noted in 1996 that the FOIA reporting requirements were
rewritten "to make them more useful to the public and to Congress, and to
make the information in them more accessible." The Congress also gave the
Department of Justice the responsibility to provide policy guidance and
oversee agencies' compliance with FOIA.

In its oversight and guidance role, Justice's Office of Information and
Privacy (OIP) created summaries of the annual FOIA reports and made these
available through its FOIA Post Web page (
[30]www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/mainpage.htm ). In 2003, Justice described
its summary as "a major guidance tool."31 It pointed out that although it
was not required to do so under the law, the office had initiated the
practice of compiling aggregate summaries of all agencies' annual FOIA
report data as soon as these were filed by all agencies. These summaries
did not contain aggregated statistical tables, but they did provide prose
descriptions that included statistics on major governmentwide results.
However, the most recent of these summaries is for fiscal year 2003.32
According to the Acting Director of OIP, she was not certain why such
summaries had not been made available since then. According to this
official, internally the agency found the summaries useful and was
considering making them available again. She also stated that these
summaries gave a good overall picture of governmentwide processing.

Aggregating and summarizing the information in the annual reports serves
to maximize their usefulness and accessibility, in accordance with
congressional intent, as well as potentially providing Justice with
insight into FOIA implementation governmentwide and valuable benchmarks
for use in overseeing the FOIA program. Such information would also be
valuable for others interested in gauging governmentwide performance. The
absence of such summaries reduces the ability of the public and the
Congress to consistently obtain a governmentwide picture of FOIA
processing.

In providing agency views for this testimony, the Acting Director of OIP
told us that the department would resume providing summaries, and that
these would generally be available by the summer following the issuance of
the annual reports.

31 Department of Justice, 2003 Litigation and Compliance Report,
[31]www.usdoj.gov/oip/03introduction.htm .

32 Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year 2003,
[32]www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost22.htm .

Agency Improvement Plans Generally Included Areas of Improvement Emphasized by
the Executive Order

As required by the Executive Order, all the 25 agencies submitted
improvement plans based on the results of reviews of their respective FOIA
operations, as well as on the areas emphasized by the order. The plans
generally addressed these four areas, with 20 of 25 plans addressing all
four. In particular, for all but 2 agencies with reported backlog, plans
included both measurable goals and timetables for backlog reduction.
Further, to increase reliance on dissemination, improve communications on
the status of requests, and increase public awareness of FOIA processing,
agencies generally set milestones to accomplish activities promoting these
aims. In some cases, agencies did not set goals for a given area because
they determined that they were already strong in that area.

All Agencies Addressed Reducing Backlog, and Most Set Measurable Goals and
Milestones

The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include "specific
activities that the agency will implement to eliminate or reduce the
agency's FOIA backlog, including (as applicable) changes that will make
the processing of FOIA requests more streamlined and effective." It
further states that plans were to include "concrete milestones, with
specific timetables and outcomes to be achieved," to allow the plan's
success to be measured and evaluated. In addition, the Justice guidance
suggested a number of process improvement areas for agencies to consider,
such as receiving or responding to requests electronically, automated FOIA
processing, automated tracking capabilities, and multitrack processing. It
also gave agencies considerable leeway in choosing "means of measurement
of success" for improving timeliness and thus reducing backlog. 33

33 For example, Justice's guidance states that "Agencies should consider a
number of measures of timeliness, including number of pending requests,
median processing times, average processing times (in addition, if that is
feasible), number of requests processed in a year, duration of oldest
pending requests, etc." "In determining such appropriate measurements,
agencies should be able to carefully determine which ones best fit their
individual circumstances, which can vary greatly from one agency to
another."

All agency plans discussed avoiding or reducing backlog, and most (22 out
of 25) established measurable goals and timetables for this area of focus.
One agency, SBA, reported that it had no backlog, so it set no goals. A
second agency, NSF, set no specific numerical goals for backlog reduction,
but in fiscal year 2005 its backlog was minimal,34 and its median
processing time was 14.26 days.35 In addition, its plan includes
activities to increase efficiency and to monitor and analyze backlogged
requests to determine whether systemic changes are warranted in its
processes. A third agency, HUD, set a measurable goal for reducing
backlog, but did not include a date by which it planned to achieve this
goal. However, it achieved this goal, according to agency officials, by
November 2006.36

The goals chosen by the 22 remaining agencies varied considerably (which
is consistent with the flexibility in choosing measures that Justice
provided in its implementation guidance). Some agencies linked backlog
reduction to various different measures. For example, EPA's goal was to
reduce its response backlog to less than 10 percent of the number of new
FOIA requests received each year. Energy set a goal of achieving a 50
percent reduction by June 2007 in the number of pending FOIA cases that
were over 1 year old. NRC chose to focus on improving processing times,
setting percentage goals for completion of different types of requests
(for example, completing 75 percent of simple requests within 20 days).
Labor's plan sets goals that aim for larger percentages of reduction for
the oldest categories of pending requests (75 percent reduction for the
oldest, 50 percent reduction for the next oldest, and so on). A number of
agencies included goals to close their oldest 5 to 10 requests (Justice,
the Treasury, Education, Commerce, Defense, GSA, NASA, SSA, and VA).

34 In fiscal year 2005, NSF reported 273 requests received and 17 pending
at the end of the reporting period. Note that pending cases are not
technically the same as the "backlog" referred to in the Executive Order,
which refers to "requests ... that have not been responded to within the
statutory time limit." Pending cases reported in the annual reports are
those FOIA cases open at the end of the reporting period. Although in
previous reports, we have used the term "backlog" to refer to these
pending cases, they may or may not constitute backlog in the sense of the
Executive Order, primarily because some requests may have arrived in the
last 20 days of the reporting period. If so, they would not exceed the
statutory limit. Thus, backlogged cases in the sense of the Executive
Order are a subset of pending cases.

35 NSF's plan stated that the vast majority of its FOIA requests are
answered within 20 working days, which is consistent with the median
processing time it reported.

36 HUD set a goal of fewer than 400 pending requests at its Headquarters
FOIA Division, at which HUD states it typically has a backlog of between
400 and 500. The HUD plan did not set backlog reduction goals for its
field operations, stating that "the field offices appear to process FOIA
requests more efficiently" than the headquarters, based on median
processing times. HUD officials also told us that HUD field offices (which
number about 80) typically receive routine requests that can be processed
quickly, such as requests for information on grants and mortgages.

Other agencies planned to eliminate their backlogs (for example, OPM and
DHS) or to eliminate fiscal year 2005 backlog (Transportation), and
several agencies chose goals based on a percentage of reduction of
existing backlog (for example, CIA, Commerce, Education, Defense, the
Interior, Justice, SSA, the Treasury, and USDA). Some agencies also
described plans to perform analyses that would measure their backlogs so
that they could then establish the necessary baselines against which to
measure progress.

In addition to setting backlog targets, agencies also describe activities
that contribute to reducing backlog. For example, the Treasury plan, which
states that backlog reduction is the main challenge facing the department
and the focus of its plan, includes such activities (with associated
milestones) as reengineering its multitrack FOIA process, monitoring
monthly reports, and establishing a FOIA council.

The agency plans thus provide a variety of activities and measures of
improvement that should permit agency heads, the Congress, and the public
to assess the agencies' success in implementing their plans to reduce
backlog.

Most Agencies Plan to Increase Public Dissemination of Records through Web Sites

The Executive Order calls for "increased reliance on the dissemination of
records that can be made available to the public" without the necessity of
a FOIA request, such as through posting on Web sites. In its guidance,
Justice notes that agencies are required by FOIA to post frequently
requested records, policy statements, staff manuals and instructions to
staff, and final agency opinions. It encourages agencies not only to
review their activities to meet this requirement, but also to make other
public information available that might reduce the need to make FOIA
requests. It also suggests that agencies consider improving FOIA Web sites
to ensure that they are user friendly and up to date.

Agency plans generally established goals and timetables for increasing
reliance on public dissemination of records, including through Web sites.
Of 25 agencies, 24 included plans to revise agency Web sites and add
information to them, and 12 of these are making additional efforts to
ensure that frequently requested documents are posted on their Web sites.
For example, Defense is planning to increase the number of its components
that have Web sites as well as posting frequently requested documents.
Interior is planning to facilitate the posting of frequently requested
documents by using scanning and redaction equipment to make electronic
versions readily available.

Agencies planned other related activities, such as making posted documents
easier to find, improving navigation, and adding other helpful
information. For example, AID plans to establish an "information/searching
decision tree" to assist Web site visitors by directing them to agency
public affairs staff who may be able to locate information and avoid the
need for visitors to file FOIA requests. HUD plans activities to
anticipate topics that may produce numerous FOIA requests ("hot button"
issues) and post relevant documents. Education is planning to use its
automated tracking technology to determine when it is receiving multiple
requests for similar information and then post such information on its Web
site.37

The Treasury plan does not address increasing public dissemination of
records. The Treasury's plan, as mentioned earlier, is focused on backlog
reduction. It does not mention the other areas emphasized in the Executive
Order, list them among the areas it selected for review, or explain the
decision to omit them from the review and plan. Treasury officials told us
that they concentrated in their plan on areas where they determined the
department had a deficiency: namely, a backlog consisting of numerous
requests, some of which were very old (dating as far back as 1991). By
comparison, they did not consider they had deficiencies in the other
areas. They also stated that neither Justice nor OMB had suggested that
they revise the plan to include these areas. With regard to dissemination,
they told us that they did not consider increasing dissemination to be
mandatory, and they noted that their Web sites currently provide
frequently requested records and other public documents, as required by
the act. However, without a careful review of the department's current
dissemination practices or a plan to take actions to increase
dissemination, the Treasury does not have assurance that it has identified
and exploited available opportunities to increase dissemination of records
in such a way as to reduce the need for the public to make FOIA requests,
as stressed by the Executive Order.

37 This is distinct from multiple requests for the same document, which is
already covered by the FOIA provision that directs agencies to post
frequently requested documents.

Most Agency Plans Included Improving Status Communications with FOIA Requesters

The Executive Order sets as policy that agencies shall provide FOIA
requesters ways to learn about the status of their FOIA requests and
states that agency improvement plans shall ensure that FOIA administration
is in accordance with this policy. In its implementation guidance, Justice
reiterated the order's emphasis on providing status information to
requesters and discussed the need for agencies to examine, among other
things, their capabilities for tracking status and the forms of
communication used with requesters.

Most agencies (22 of 25) established goals and timetables for improving
communications with FOIA requesters about the status of their requests.
Goals set by these agencies included planned changes to communications,
including sending acknowledgement letters, standardizing letters to
requesters, including information on elements of a proper FOIA request in
response letters, and posting contact information on Web pages. Other
activities included establishing toll free numbers for requesters to
obtain status information, acquiring software to allow requesters to track
the status of their requests, and holding public forums.

Three agencies did not include improvement goals because they considered
them unnecessary. In two cases (Defense and EPA), agencies considered that
status communications were already an area of strength.

           o Defense considered that it was strong in both customer
           responsiveness and communications.38 Defense's Web site provides
           instructions for requesters on how to get information about the
           status of requests, as well as information on Requester Service
           Centers and Public Liaisons. Officials also told us that this
           information is included in acknowledgement letters to requesters,
           and that the department is working to implement an Interactive
           Customer Collection tool that would enable requesters to provide
           feedback.
           o Similarly, EPA officials told us that they considered the
           agency's activities to communicate with requesters on the status
           of their requests to be already effective, noting that many of the
           improvements planned by other agencies were already in effect at
           EPA.39 Officials also stated that EPA holds regular FOIA requester
           forums (the last in November 2006), and that EPA's requester
           community had expressed satisfaction with EPA's responsiveness.
           EPA's response to the Executive Order describes its FOIA hotline
           for requesters and its enterprise FOIA management system, deployed
           in 2005, that provides "cradle to grave" tracking of incoming
           requests and responses.

The third agency, the Treasury, did not address improving status
communications, as its plan is focused on backlog reduction. As required
by the Executive Order, the Treasury did set up Requester Service Centers
and Public Liaisons, which are among the mechanisms envisioned to improve
status communications. However, because the Treasury omitted status
communications from the areas of improvement that it selected for review,
it is not clear that this area received attention commensurate with the
emphasis it was given in the Executive Order. Without attention to
communication with requesters, the Treasury increases the risk that its
FOIA operations will not be responsive and citizen centered, as envisioned
by the Executive Order.

38 Defense performed extensive surveys of the opinions and practices of
its FOIA staff and Public Liaisons and concluded that "FOIA personnel
routinely contact requesters to try to resolve problems and to better
define requests." Department officials also told us that Defense is in the
process of collecting feedback from the requester community.

39 For example, EPA sends out an acknowledgment letter within a day of the
request that includes a tracking number, the department that will be
involved, and a contact name and telephone number.

Agencies Generally Plan to Rely on FOIA Reference Guides to Increase Public
Awareness of FOIA Processing

The Executive Order states that improvement plans shall include activities
to increase public awareness of FOIA processing, including (as
appropriate) expanded use of Requester Service Centers and FOIA Public
Liaisons, which agencies were required to establish by the order. In
Justice's guidance, it linked this requirement to the FOIA Reference Guide
that agencies are required to maintain as an aid to potential FOIA
requesters, because such guides can be an effective means for increasing
public awareness. Accordingly, the Justice guidance advised agencies to
double-check these guides to ensure that they remain comprehensive and up
to date.

Most agencies (23 of 25) defined goals and timetables for increasing
public awareness of FOIA processing, generally including ensuring that
FOIA reference guides were up to date. In addition, all 25 agencies
established requester service centers and public liaisons as required by
the Executive Order. Besides these activities, certain agencies planned
other types of outreach: for example, the Department of State reported
taking steps to obtain feedback from the public on how to improve FOIA
processes; the Department of the Interior plans to initiate feedback
surveys on requesters' FOIA experience; and the Department of Labor is
planning to hold public forums and solicit suggestions from the requester
community. Defense did not set specific goals and milestones in this area;
according to Defense, it did not do so because its FOIA handbook had
already been updated in the fall of 2005. Department officials told us
that in meeting their goals and milestones for revising FOIA Web sites,
they expect to improve awareness of Defense's FOIA process, as well as
improving public access and other objectives.

As mentioned earlier, the Treasury did not address this area in its review
or plan. However, Treasury has established Requester Service Centers and
FOIA Public Liaisons, as required. The Treasury's Director of Disclosure
Services40 also told us that the Treasury provides on its Web site a FOIA
handbook, a Privacy Act handbook, and a citizen's guide for requesters. In
addition, this official told us that the Treasury had updated its FOIA
handbook in 2005 and conducted staff training based on the update.
However, at the time of our review, the FOIA handbook on the Web site was
a version dated January 2000. When we pointed out that this earlier
version was posted, the official indicated that he would arrange for the
most recent version to be posted.

Because the Treasury did not review its efforts to increase public
awareness, it missed an opportunity to discover that the handbook on the
Web site was outdated and thus had reduced effectiveness as a tool to
explain the agency's FOIA processing to the public. Without further
attention to increasing public awareness, the Treasury lacks assurance
that it has taken all appropriate steps to ensure that the public has the
means of understanding the agency's FOIA processing.

Annual Reporting and Selected Improvement Plans Could Be Further Enhanced

The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information about
citizens' use of this important tool for obtaining information about
government operation and decisions. The value of this information is
enhanced when it can be used to reveal trends and support generalizations,
but our ability to generalize about processing times--whether from agency
to agency or year to year--is limited because only median times are
reported. Given that processing times are an important gauge of government
responsiveness to citizen inquiries, this limitation impedes the
development of broader pictures of FOIA operations, which could be useful
in monitoring efforts to improve processing and reduce the increasing
backlog of requests, as intended by the Executive Order. Finally, having
aggregated statistics and summaries could increase the value of the annual
reporting process for assessing the performance of the FOIA program as a
whole.

40 This official is also the FOIA public liaison for all Treasury
components except the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Inspector General
for Tax Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.

In the draft report on which my statement today is based, we suggest that
the Congress consider amending the act to require agencies to report
additional statistics on processing time, which at a minimum should
include average times and ranges. We also recommend that Justice provide
aggregated statistics and summaries of the annual reports.

The Executive Order provided a useful impetus for agencies to review their
FOIA operations and ensure that they are appropriately responsive to the
public generally and requesters specifically. Our draft report makes
recommendations aimed at improving selected agency improvement plans.
Nonetheless, all the plans show a commendable focus on making measurable
improvements and form a reasonable basis for carrying out the order's
goals.

In summary, increasing the requirements for annual reporting would further
improve the public visibility of the government's implementation of FOIA.
In addition, implementing the improvement plans and reporting on their
progress should serve to keep management attention on FOIA and its role in
keeping citizens well informed about the operations of their government.
However, to realize the goals of the Executive Order, it will be important
for Justice and the agencies to continue to refine the improvement plans
and monitor progress in their implementation.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy to respond to
any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this
time.

Contact and Acknowledgments

If you should have questions about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or [email protected] . Other major contributors included
Barbara Collier, Kelly Shaw, and Elizabeth Zhao.

Attachment I: Scope and Methodology

For the draft report on which this testimony is based, we gauged agencies'
progress in processing requests by analyzing the workload data (from
fiscal year 2002 through 2005) included in the 25 agencies' annual FOIA
reports to assess trends in volume of requests received and processed,
median processing times, and the number of pending cases. All agency
workload data were self-reported in annual reports submitted to the
Attorney General.

To assess the reliability of the information contained in agency annual
reports, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and assessed
quality control processes agencies had in place. We selected 10 agencies
to assess data reliability: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
Defense, Education, the Interior, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, as well as
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science
Foundation, Small Business Administration, and Social Security
Administration. We chose the Social Security Administration and Veterans
Affairs because they processed a majority of the requests. To ensure that
we selected agencies of varying size, we chose the remaining 8 agencies by
ordering them according to the number of requests they received, from
smallest to largest, and choosing every third agency. These 10 agencies
account for 97 percent of the received requests that were reported in the
25 agencies' annual reports.

Of the 10 agencies that were assessed for data reliability, we determined
that the data for USDA's Farm Service Agency were not reliable; these data
account for over 80 percent of the reported USDA data. We therefore
eliminated USDA's data from our analysis. Because of this elimination, our
analysis was of 24 major agencies41 (herein we refer to this scope as
governmentwide). Table 7 shows the 25 agencies and their reliability
assessment status.

41 The agencies included are listed in table 2; these agencies are the 24
agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the Central
Intelligence Agency.

Table 7: Agencies Reviewed

                                                             Data reliability 
Agency                                       Abbreviation assessment       
Agency for International Development         AID          Not assessed     
Central Intelligence Agency                  CIA          Not assessed     
Department of Agriculture                    USDA         Not reliable     
Department of Commerce                       DOC          Not assessed     
Department of Defense                        DOD          Reliable         
Department of Education                      ED           Reliable         
Department of Energy                         DOE          Not assessed     
Department of Health and Human Services      HHS          Not assessed     
Department of Homeland Security a            DHS          Not assessed     
Federal Emergency Management Agency a        FEMA         Not applicable   
Department of Housing and Urban Development  HUD          Not assessed     
Department of the Interior                   DOI          Reliable         
Department of Justice                        DOJ          Not assessed     
Department of Labor                          DOL          Reliable         
Department of State                          State        Not assessed     
Department of the Treasury                   Treas        Not assessed     
Department of Transportation                 DOT          Not assessed     
Department of Veterans Affairs               VA           Reliable         
Environmental Protection Agency              EPA          Not assessed     
General Services Administration              GSA          Not assessed     
National Aeronautics and Space               NASA         Reliable         
Administration                                                             
National Science Foundation                  NSF          Reliable         
Nuclear Regulatory Commission                NRC          Not assessed     
Office of Personnel Management               OPM          Not assessed     
Small Business Administration                SBA          Reliable         
Social Security Administration               SSA          Reliable         

Source: GAO.

a FEMA information was reported separately in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005, FEMA was part of DHS.

To determine to what extent the agency improvement plans contain the
elements emphasized by the order, we first analyzed the Executive Order to
determine how it described the contents of the improvement plans. We
determined that the order emphasized the following areas to be addressed
by the plans: (1) reducing the backlog of FOIA requests, (2) increasing
reliance on public dissemination of records (affirmative and proactive)
including through Web sites, (3) improving communications with FOIA
requesters about the status of their requests, and (4) increasing public
awareness of FOIA processing including updating an agency's FOIA Reference
Guide. We also analyzed the improvement plans to determine if they
contained specific outcome-oriented goals and timetables for each of the
criteria. We then analyzed the 25 agencies' (including USDA) plans to
determine whether they contained goals and timetables for each of these
four elements.42  We evaluated the versions of agency plans available as
of December 15, 2006.

We also reviewed the Executive Order itself, implementing guidance issued
by OMB and the Department of Justice, other FOIA guidance issued by
Justice, and our past work in this area.

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We performed our work from May 2006 to February 2007
in Washington, D.C.

42 Two GAO analysts independently analyzed each agency's plan to determine
if it contained objective goals and timetables for each of the four
elements we identified. When the analysts disagreed, they discussed the
reasons for their differences and arrived at a consensus.

Attachment II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions

The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that is exempt
from disclosure:

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 matters be withheld from the    
                    public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the  
                    issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for         
                    withholding or refers to particular types of matters to   
                    be withheld.                                              
(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.                 
(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 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 of        
                    supervision of financial institutions.                    
(9)              Geological and geophysical information and data,          
                    including maps, concerning wells.                         

Source: 5 U.S.C. S 552(b)(1) through (b)(9).

(310783)

United States Government Accountability Office

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST Wednesday, February 14,
2007

GAO

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

GAO-07-491T

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-491T .

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
[email protected].

Highlights of [35]GAO-07-491T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform

February 14, 2007

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Processing Trends Show Importance of Improvement Plans

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes that federal agencies
must provide the public with access to government information, enabling
them to learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure
proper implementation, the act requires that agencies annually report
specific information about their FOIA operations, such as numbers of
requests received and processed and median processing times. In addition,
a recent Executive Order directs agencies to develop plans to improve
their FOIA operations, including decreasing backlogs.

GAO was asked to testify on the results of its study on FOIA processing
and agencies' improvement plans. The draft report on the study is
currently out for comment at the agencies involved (and is thus subject to
change). For the study, GAO reviewed status and trends of FOIA processing
at 25 major agencies as reflected in annual reports, as well as the extent
to which improvement plans contain the elements emphasized by the
Executive Order. To do so, GAO analyzed the 25 agencies' annual reports
and improvement plans.

[36]What GAO Recommends

In its draft report, GAO suggests that the Congress consider additions to
the annual reporting requirements and makes recommendations to enhance
selected agency improvement plans, among other things.

Based on data in annual reports from 2002 to 2005, the public continued to
submit more requests for information from the federal government through
FOIA. Despite increasing the numbers of requests processed, many agencies
did not keep pace with the volume of requests that they received. As a
result, the number of pending requests carried over from year to year has
been steadily increasing (see figure). Agency reports also show great
variations in the median times to process requests (less than 10 days for
some agency components to more than 100 days at others). However, the
ability to determine trends in processing times is limited by the form in
which these times are reported: that is, in medians only, without averages
(that is, arithmetical means) or ranges. Although medians have the
advantage of providing representative numbers that are not skewed by a few
outliers, it is not statistically possible to combine several medians to
develop broader generalizations (as can be done with arithmetical means).
This limitation on aggregating data impedes the development of broader
pictures of FOIA operations, which could be useful in monitoring efforts
to improve processing and reduce the increasing backlog of requests, as
intended by the Executive Order.

The improvement plans submitted by the 25 agencies mostly included goals
and timetables addressing the four areas of improvement emphasized by the
Executive Order: eliminating or reducing any backlog of FOIA requests;
increasing reliance on dissemination of records that can be made available
to the public without the need for a FOIA request, such as through posting
on Web sites; improving communications with requesters about the status of
their requests; and increasing public awareness of FOIA processing. Most
of the plans (20 of 25) provided goals and timetables in all four areas;
some agencies omitted goals in areas where they considered they were
already strong. Although details of a few plans could be improved (for
example, one agency did not explicitly address areas of improvement other
than backlog), all the plans focus on making measurable improvements and
form a reasonable basis for carrying out the goals of the Executive Order.

Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2005

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

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

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

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.

References

Visible links
  26. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html
  27. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_6.html
  28. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/agency_improvement.html
  29. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm
  30. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/mainpage.htm
  31. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/03introduction.htm
  32. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2004foiapost22.htm
  35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-491T
  *** End of document. ***