Freedom of Information Act: Agencies Are Making Progress in	 
Reducing Backlog, but Additional Guidance Is Needed (14-MAR-08,  
GAO-08-344).							 
                                                                 
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), federal agencies	 
must generally provide access to their information, enabling the 
public to learn about government operations and decisions. To	 
help ensure proper implementation, the act requires that agencies
report annually to the Attorney General on their processing of	 
FOIA requests. For fiscal year 2006, agencies were also to report
on their progress in implementing plans to improve FOIA 	 
operations, as directed by a December 2005 Executive Order. A	 
major goal of the order was reducing backlogs of overdue FOIA	 
requests (the statute requires an agency to respond to requests  
within 20 or, in some cases, 30 working days with a determination
on whether it will provide records). For this study, GAO was	 
asked, among other things, to determine trends in FOIA processing
and agencies' progress in addressing backlogs of overdue FOIA	 
requests since implementing their improvement plans. To do so,	 
GAO analyzed 21 agencies' annual reports and additional 	 
statistics.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-344 					        
    ACCNO:   A81299						        
  TITLE:     Freedom of Information Act: Agencies Are Making Progress 
in Reducing Backlog, but Additional Guidance Is Needed		 
     DATE:   03/14/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Federal agencies					 
	     Federal Information Processing Standards		 
	     Freedom of information				 
	     Government information				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Information access 				 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Information management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Records management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-344

   

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

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and 
National Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

March 2008: 

Freedom Of Information Act: 

Agencies Are Making Progress in Reducing Backlog, but Additional 
Guidance Is Needed: 

GAO-08-344: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-344, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), federal agencies must 
generally provide access to their information, enabling the public to 
learn about government operations and decisions. To help ensure proper 
implementation, the act requires that agencies report annually to the 
Attorney General on their processing of FOIA requests. For fiscal year 
2006, agencies were also to report on their progress in implementing 
plans to improve FOIA operations, as directed by a December 2005 
Executive Order. A major goal of the order was reducing backlogs of 
overdue FOIA requests (the statute requires an agency to respond to 
requests within 20 or, in some cases, 30 working days with a 
determination on whether it will provide records). 

For this study, GAO was asked, among other things, to determine trends 
in FOIA processing and agenciesï¿½ progress in addressing backlogs of 
overdue FOIA requests since implementing their improvement plans. To do 
so, GAO analyzed 21 agenciesï¿½ annual reports and additional statistics. 

What GAO Found: 

Based on data reported by major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 
fiscal years 2002 to 2006, the numbers of FOIA requests received and 
processed continue to rise, but the rate of increase has flattened in 
recent years. The number of pending requests carried over from year to 
year has also increased, although the rate of increase has declined. 
The increase in pending requests is primarily due to increases in 
requests directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 
particular, increases have occurred at DHSï¿½s Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, which accounted for about 89 percent of DHSï¿½s 
total pending requests. However, the rate of increase is slightly less 
than it was in fiscal year 2005. 

Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392 
and agency improvement plans, many agencies have shown progress in 
decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests as of September 2007. In 
response to GAOï¿½s request, 16 agencies provided information on their 
recent progress in addressing backlogs; results showed that 9 achieved 
decreases, 5 experienced increases, and 2 had no material change. 
Notably, according to this information, DHS was able to decrease its 
backlog of overdue requests by 29,972, or about 29 percent. However, 
the statistics provided by the 16 agencies varied widely, representing 
both overdue cases and all pending cases, as well as varying time 
frames. Further, 3 of 21 agencies reviewed were unable to provide 
statistics supporting their backlog reduction efforts, and 1 provided 
statistics by component, which could not be aggregated to provide an 
agencywide result. (The remaining agency reported no backlog before or 
after implementing its plan.) Tracking and reporting numbers of overdue 
cases is not a requirement of the annual FOIA reports or of the 
Executive Order. Although both the Executive Order and Justiceï¿½s 
implementing guidance put a major emphasis on backlog reduction, 
agencies were given flexibility in developing goals and metrics that 
they considered most appropriate in light of their current FOIA 
operations and individual circumstances. As a result, agenciesï¿½ goals 
and metrics vary widely, and progress could not be assessed against a 
common metric. 

The progress that many agencies made in reducing backlog suggests that 
the development and implementation of the FOIA improvement plans have 
had a positive effect. However, in the absence of consistent statistics 
on overdue cases, it is not possible to make a full assessment of 
governmentwide progress in this area. Justiceï¿½s most recent guidance 
directs agencies to set goals for reducing backlogs of overdue requests 
in future fiscal years, which could lead to the development of a 
consistent metric; however, it does not direct agencies to monitor and 
report overdue requests or to develop plans for meeting the new goals. 
Without such planning and tracking, agencies may be challenged to 
achieve the reductions envisioned. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending, among other things, that Justice provide 
additional guidance to agencies on tracking and reporting overdue 
requests and planning to meet future backlog goals. The agencies 
reviewed, including Justice, generally agreed with GAOï¿½s assessment and 
recommendations or had no comment. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-344]. For more 
information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Trends in FOIA Processing Appear Similar to Previous Years: 

Several Factors Contribute to FOIA Cases Remaining Open beyond the 
Statutory Limit: 

Since Implementing Improvement Plans, Several Agencies Reduced Backlogs 
of Overdue or Pending Requests, but the Governmentwide Picture Is 
Incomplete: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Agency for International Development: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: "Other" Reasons for Nondisclosure: 

Table 2: Agencies Reviewed: 

Table 3: Comparison of SSA's Simple Requests Handled by Non-FOIA Staff 
to Totals, Fiscal Years 2002-2006: 

Table 4: FOIA Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 5: Disposition of Processed FOIA Requests for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2006, by 
Track: 

Table 7: Agency Proportions of Pending and Received Requests for Fiscal 
Year 2006: 

Table 8: Statistics on the Change in Numbers of Overdue (or Pending) 
Requests for 16 Agencies: 

Table 9: Dates of Baseline Statistics for 16 Agencies: 

Table 10: Four Agencies with Missing or Inconclusive Statistics: 

Table 11: Data Reliability Assessment Status for Agencies Reviewed: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Overview of Generic FOIA Process: 

Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years 
2002-2006: 

Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Omitting 
SSA, Fiscal Years 2002-2006: 

Figure 4: Disposition of Processed Requests by Agency, Fiscal Year 
2006: 

Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2006: 

Figure 6: DHS Portion of Pending Requests, Fiscal Years 2003-2006: 

Figure 7: Agency FOIA Processing Rate for 22 Agencies: 

Figure 8: Oldest Pending Requests, as Reported by Agencies in Fiscal 
Year 2006 Annual Reports: 

Abbreviations: 

AID: Agency for International Development: 

CIS: Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DSS: Defense Security Service: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPEN Government Act: Openness Promotes Effectiveness in Our Government 
Act of 2007: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 14, 2008: 

The Honorable William Lacy Clay: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

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

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 
fiscal year, and the median times that agencies or their components 
took to process requests.[Footnote 2] Since 2001, we have provided the 
Congress with periodic analyses of the contents of these annual 
reports.[Footnote 3] 

In December 2005, the President issued an Executive Order aimed at 
improving agencies' disclosure of information consistent with 
FOIA.[Footnote 4] A major focus of the order was the reduction or 
elimination of "backlog" requests for records that have not been 
responded to within the statutory time limit--generally 20 working 
days.[Footnote 5] (For clarity, we refer to this as "backlog of overdue 
requests" or "overdue requests" to distinguish it from pending 
requests, as reported in the annual reports; pending requests are all 
open requests, whether or not they have been responded to within the 
time limits.) Among other things, this order required each agency to 
review its FOIA operations and develop improvement plans; 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. Agencies were also required 
to include an additional section in their fiscal year 2006 annual 
reports (due February 1, 2007), reporting on their progress in 
implementing their improvement plans through mid to late January 
2007.[Footnote 6] 

As agreed, our objectives were to (1) determine the status of agencies' 
processing of FOIA requests and any trends that can be seen, (2) 
describe factors that contribute to FOIA requests remaining open beyond 
the statutory limits, and (3) determine to what extent agencies have 
made progress in addressing their backlogs of overdue FOIA requests 
since implementing their improvement plans. 

To describe statistics on the processing of FOIA requests, we analyzed 
annual report data for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Our intended 
scope was the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, 
plus the Central Intelligence Agency (herein we refer to this scope as 
governmentwide). To ensure that the data reported in the annual reports 
were reliable, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and 
assessed the internal controls that agencies had in place for ensuring 
that their data were complete and accurate (we provide a more detailed 
discussion of our data reliability assessment in app. I). As a result 
of this effort, we omitted 4 of the 25 agencies from our analysis: the 
Central Intelligence Agency, the General Services Administration, and 
the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development. As a 
result, our statistical analysis for this report was based on data from 
a total of 21 agencies' annual reports. 

To describe factors that contribute to FOIA requests remaining open 
beyond the statutory limits, we reviewed case files for the 10 oldest 
pending requests at selected agencies. We also interviewed agency 
officials regarding the factors they considered most relevant for their 
agencies. 

To determine to what extent agencies made progress in addressing their 
backlogs of overdue FOIA requests since implementing their improvement 
plans, we analyzed the improvement plan progress reports included in 
the fiscal year 2006 annual reports of the 21 major agencies whose 
internal controls we evaluated as sufficient. We reviewed statistics 
provided by the agencies on their backlogs before the implementation of 
their improvement plans and as of September 2007. We analyzed the 
progress that agencies had made on reducing the backlog of overdue 
requests. In addition, we reviewed the requirements for reporting 
progress contained in the Executive Order, guidance from OMB and the 
Department of Justice, and our past work in this area. A more detailed 
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in 
appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to March 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Based on data reported by 21 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 
2002 to 2006,[Footnote 7] the numbers of FOIA requests received and 
processed continue to rise, but the rate of increase has flattened in 
recent years. The number of pending requests carried over from year to 
year has also increased, although the rate of increase has declined. 
Our analysis of agency reports indicates the following: 

* Requests received and processed continue to level off, showing only 
slight increases compared to previous years. Except for one agency--the 
Social Security Administration (SSA)[Footnote 8]--these increases were 
only about 1 and 2 percent, respectively, from 2005 to 2006 (compared 
to 23 percent from 2002 to 2006 both for requests received and for 
requests processed). 

* For most requests processed in fiscal year 2006, responsive records 
were provided in full. The percentage (87 percent) is about the same as 
in previous years. 

* Median times to process requests varied greatly. These ranged from 
less than 10 days for some agency components to more than 100 days at 
others (sometimes much more than 100). 

* Numbers of pending requests carried over from year to year have 
increased because of increases at the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). In particular, increases have occurred at DHS's Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, which accounted for about 89 percent of DHS's 
total pending requests. However, the rate of increase is slightly less 
than it was in fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 9] 

Our statistical analysis omits data from the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the General Services Administration, and the Departments of 
Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development, because we did not have 
reasonable assurance that their data were accurate and complete. The 
Central Intelligence Agency did not provide information in response to 
our requests; without its participation, we were unable to determine 
whether it had internal controls ensuring that its data were accurate 
and complete. The other agencies did not provide evidence of internal 
controls that would provide reasonable assurance that FOIA data were 
recorded completely and correctly, or they acknowledged material 
limitations of the data. Accurate annual report data are important to 
meeting the act's goal of providing visibility into government FOIA 
operations. 

According to our examination of selected case files and discussions 
with agency officials, several factors can lead to FOIA requests 
remaining open beyond the statutory limit. Common factors include the 
volume of records involved, the review process (including the need to 
consult with other agencies or confer with multiple organizations 
within the agency), and the need to provide predisclosure notifications 
to submitters of information before it can be released. In addition, 
cases have remained open for long periods when requesters ask for 
information on ongoing investigations. In such cases, agencies may 
withhold material until the investigation is complete under various 
exemptions, but requesters have the option of asking that the request 
remain open until the investigation is complete. Further, at one 
component of the Department of Justice, another factor was the priority 
given to avoiding litigation; this led to requests open for more than 6 
years being given lower priority because the component believed they 
could no longer be pursued in litigation, in accordance with the 
general federal statute of limitations.[Footnote 10] Although avoiding 
litigation is a reasonable goal, this practice is inconsistent with the 
department's expressed emphasis on closing agencies' longest-pending 
FOIA requests and tends to increase the number of very old open 
requests having little prospect of being closed. 

Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in the Executive Order and 
agency improvement plans, many agencies have shown progress in 
decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests as of September 2007. Of 
16 agencies providing statistics, 9 decreased overdue or pending 
requests, 5 experienced increases, and 2 had no material change. 
(Notably, according to these statistics, DHS was able to decrease its 
backlog of overdue requests by 29,972, or about 29 percent.) However, 
the statistics provided by the 16 agencies varied widely, representing 
a mix of both overdue and total pending cases, as well as varying time 
frames. Further, 3 of the 21 agencies were unable to provide statistics 
supporting their backlog reduction efforts, and 1 provided statistics 
by component, which could not be aggregated to provide an agencywide 
result. (The remaining agency reported no backlog before or after 
implementing its plan.) 

Tracking and reporting such statistics is not a requirement of the 
annual FOIA reports or of the Executive Order. Although both the 
Executive Order and Justice's implementing guidance put a major 
emphasis on backlog reduction, agencies were given flexibility in 
developing goals and metrics that they considered most appropriate in 
light of their current FOIA operations and individual circumstances. As 
a result, agencies' goals and metrics vary widely, and progress could 
not be assessed against a common metric. Flexibility may be appropriate 
in light of the wide variety of circumstances at the various agencies, 
but in the absence of consistent statistics on overdue cases, it is 
challenging to assess governmentwide progress in this area. Justice's 
most recent guidance directs agencies to set goals for reducing 
backlogs of overdue requests in future fiscal years, which could lead 
to the development of a consistent metric; however, it does not direct 
agencies to monitor and report overdue requests or to develop plans for 
meeting the new goals. 

To help ensure that FOIA data in the annual reports are reliable, we 
are making recommendations to selected agencies. To avoid allowing 
cases open for more than 6 years to remain open indefinitely, we are 
recommending that Justice develop and implement a strategy for closing 
the oldest requests in its Criminal Division, including those over 6 
years old. To help ensure that comparable statistics on overdue 
requests are available governmentwide, we are also recommending that 
Justice provide additional guidance to agencies on tracking and 
reporting overdue requests and planning to meet the new backlog goals. 

We provided a draft of our report for comment to OMB and all 24 
agencies reviewed. All the agencies generally agreed with our 
assessment and recommendations or had no comment. Written comments from 
the Agency for International Development, the Department of Energy, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the 
Office of Personnel Management are provided in appendixes III through 
IX. In addition, five agencies (the Departments of Commerce, Defense, 
the Interior, Justice, and State) provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government records and 
information on the basis of the principles of openness and 
accountability in government. Before the act (originally enacted in 
1966),[Footnote 11] 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" standard, 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 on 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 (see app. II 
for a complete list).[Footnote 12] 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);[Footnote 13] responses to appeals of 
adverse determinations (20 business days from filing of the appeal); 
and whether to provide expedited processing of requests (10 calendar 
days from receipt of the request). The 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: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of a generic FOIA process, as follows: 

* Receive request: 
* Process request: 
- Log FOIA request; 
- Create case files; 
- Scope request; 
- Estimate fees; 
- Generate initial responses; 
* Retrieve records: 
- Search for responsive records; 
- Request records; 
- Review responsive records; 
* Process records: 
- Make redactions; 
- Apply exemption codes; 
- Calculate fees; 
* Approve release of records: 
- Review redacted records; 
- Generate responses; 
- Approve release; 
* Release records: 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[End of figure] 

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 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 requirement for the agency FOIA office to work with 
offices that have relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain 
information, the requirement for a FOIA officer to review and redact 
information in the responsive material, the requirement to communicate 
with the requester about the scope of the request, and the requirement 
to communicate with the requester about the fees that will be charged 
for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be waived).[Footnote 
14] 

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 Internet. 
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 for the information. 

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: 

* Grants: Agency decisions to disclose all requested records in full. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* Not disclosed for other reasons: Agency decisions not to release 
requested information for any of a variety of reasons other than 
statutory exemptions. The categories and definitions of these "other" 
reasons for nondisclosure are shown in table 1. 

Table 1: "Other" Reasons for Nondisclosure: 

Category: No records; 
Definition: The agency searched and found no record responsive to the 
request. 

Category: Referrals; 
Definition: The agency referred records responsive to the request to 
another agency. 

Category: Request withdrawn; 
Definition: The requester withdrew the request. 

Category: Fee-related reasons; 
Definition: The requester refused to commit to pay fees (or other 
reasons related to fees). 

Category: Records not reasonably described; 
Definition: The requester did not describe the records sought with 
sufficient specificity to allow them to be located with a reasonable 
amount of effort. 

Category: Not a proper FOIA request; 
Definition: The request was not a FOIA request for one of several 
procedural reasons. 

Category: Not an agency record; 
Definition: The requested record was not within the agency's control. 

Category: Duplicate request; 
Definition: The request was submitted more than once by the same 
requester. 

Source: Department of Justice. 

[End of table] 

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 1974[Footnote 15] 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, 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. 

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 both FOIA and the Privacy Act can 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 require review and redaction before being provided to the person 
who was the subject of the investigation. 

Roles of OMB and Justice in FOIA Implementation: 

Both OMB and the Department of Justice have roles in the implementation 
of FOIA. Under various statutes, including the Paperwork Reduction 
Act,[Footnote 16] 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."[Footnote 17] OMB issued 
this guidance in April 1987.[Footnote 18] 

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: 

* make agencies' annual FOIA reports available through a single 
electronic access point and notify the Congress as to their 
availability; 

* in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required annual 
agency reports; and: 

* 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 and on 
compliance, provides training, and maintains a counselor service to 
provide expert, one-on-one assistance to agency FOIA staff. Further, 
the Office of Information and Privacy makes a variety of FOIA and 
Privacy Act resources available to agencies and the public via the 
Justice Web site and online bulletins (available at [hyperlink, 
http://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.[Footnote 19] The following are examples of 
information that is to be included in these reports: 

* number of requests received, processed, and pending at the end of the 
fiscal year; 

* median number of days taken by the agency to process different types 
of requests; 

* number of determinations made by the agency not to disclose 
information and the reasons for not disclosing the information; 

* disposition of administrative appeals by requesters; 

* information on the costs associated with handling of FOIA requests; 
and: 

* full-time-equivalent staffing information. 

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 
online at a single electronic access point and report to the Congress 
no later than April 1 of each year that these reports are available in 
electronic form. (This electronic access point is [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_6.html]). 

Executive Order Led to Various Activities Aimed at Improving FOIA 
Operations: 

On December 14, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, 
setting forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA 
administration. Briefly, according to this policy, 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: that is, agencies are to process requests 
efficiently, achieve measurable improvements in FOIA processing 
(including reducing backlog of overdue requests), 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. 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. 

A major focus of the order was for agency plans to include specific 
activities that the agency would implement to eliminate or reduce any 
FOIA backlog of overdue requests: that is, requests for records that 
have not been responded to within the statutory time limit. Note that 
this backlog of overdue requests is distinct from the pending cases 
reported in the annual reports (those FOIA cases open at the end of the 
reporting period).[Footnote 20] For the annual reports, agencies are 
required by the statute to provide a count of FOIA requests that are 
still pending (that is, not yet closed) at the end of the reporting 
period. In response to this annual report requirement, agency tracking 
systems and processes have been geared to providing statistics on 
pending requests. Pending cases totals would generally be larger than 
backlog, as the term is used in the Executive Order, since they would 
include any requests received within the last 20 to 30 working days of 
the reporting period, which would not be overdue. 

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. In addition, 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; agencies were instructed to account in the annual report for any 
milestones missed and also to report them to the President's Management 
Council. 

In April 2006, the Department of Justice posted guidance on 
implementation of the order's requirements for FOIA reviews and 
improvement plans.[Footnote 21] This guidance suggested a number of 
areas of FOIA administration that agencies might consider when 
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 their plans and to report on 
their reviews and plans. 

The order's emphasis on backlog provided an incentive for agencies to 
focus on reducing overdue requests. With respect to backlog reduction, 
the guidance stated that agencies were not limited to time horizons in 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 only. According to the guidance, if an 
agency believed that reform could enable it to process requests in a 
more efficient manner, thereby reducing its backlog, the agency should 
consider implementing these measures even though they might result in a 
short-term increase in backlog, as long as it was confident of a long-
term benefit. At the same time, the guidance advised agencies to 
consider what they might do to counterbalance any anticipated short-
term effect through other means of backlog reduction. 

Also included in this guidance was supplemental information on 
preparing the annual FOIA reports for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 
According to the guidance, the annual reports for fiscal years 2006 and 
2007 were to include an additional section on agencies' progress in 
implementing their plans to improve their FOIA activities. The guidance 
provided a template for reporting progress and stated that, for the 
fiscal year 2006 report (due February 1, 2007), agencies should be able 
to report on progress for at least 7 months (i.e., from no later than 
June 14, 2006, to late January 2007). The improvement plans are posted 
on the Department of Justice Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/agency_improvement.html]. 

In June 2007, the Attorney General submitted a report to the President 
on the progress that agencies made in the first months of implementing 
their FOIA improvement plans, as reported in the fiscal year 2006 
annual reports of all 92 federal departments and agencies.[Footnote 22] 
The report provided an overall assessment of progress followed by a 
more detailed discussion of agency activities. According to this 
assessment, agencies made measurable progress in implementing the 
Executive Order during the first reporting period (about 7 months of 
activity under the FOIA improvement plans), with more than half the 
agencies (54) reporting successes in achieving all their milestones and 
goals on time. Discussing 25 key agencies, the report stated that 22 
reported meaningful progress in FOIA administration, with 11 achieving 
all milestones on time; however, 3 reported one or more milestones for 
which they failed to achieve progress. The report also discussed areas 
where agencies reported deficiencies in meeting their early milestones 
or goals, and it made recommendations for improving FOIA 
implementation. In addition, it presented progress charts for the 25 
key agencies showing whether they had achieved their planned goals and 
milestones. 

Also in June 2007, the Department of Justice posted guidance on 
providing updated status reports to the President's Management Council. 
These status reports were required by August 1, 2007, from agencies who 
reported deficiencies in meeting the goals in their fiscal year 2006 
annual FOIA reports. According to this guidance, such agencies were to 
report on their progress toward completing the corrective steps 
described in their annual reports. In the updated status reports, 
agencies were instructed to account for any missed milestone by 
identifying it and outlining the steps taken and to be taken to address 
the deficiency. 

In September 2007, the Department of Justice posted guidance to 
agencies on submitting backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 
2009, and 2010.[Footnote 23] According to the guidance, any agency that 
had any request or appeal pending beyond the statutory time period at 
the end of fiscal year 2007 was to establish backlog reduction goals 
for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, and was to publish such goals on 
the agency's Web site. Those goals were to be expressed in two ways. 
First, each agency was required to set a goal for the number of 
requests and the number of appeals that it planned to process during 
each fiscal year from 2008 through 2010. Second, each agency was 
required to set a goal for the number of requests and the number of 
appeals that the agency estimated would be pending beyond the statutory 
time period (i.e., backlog of overdue requests) at the end of each 
fiscal year from 2008 through 2010. 

In October 2007, Justice issued supplemental guidance on the section of 
the fiscal year 2007 annual FOIA reports in which agencies were to 
describe progress on their improvement plans and provide certain 
additional statistics.[Footnote 24] Among other things, this guidance 
required agencies to track their 10 oldest pending requests; to track 
the number of consultations received, processed, and pending; and to 
report this information in their fiscal year 2007 annual FOIA reports. 
It also provided templates for the progress reports and additional 
statistics. 

In Previous Work, We Have Examined Processing Statistics and Agency 
Improvement Plans: 

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.[Footnote 25] In these reviews, we 
examined the contents of the annual reports for 25 major agencies 
(shown in table 2).[Footnote 26] 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 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 
were reflected in the 25 agencies. 

Table 2: Agencies Reviewed: 

Agency: Agency for International Development; 
Abbreviation: AID. 

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency[A]; 
Abbreviation: CIA. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture[A]; 
Abbreviation: USDA. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Abbreviation: DOC. 

Agency: Department of Defense; 
Abbreviation: DOD. 

Agency: Department of Education; 
Abbreviation: ED. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Abbreviation: DOE. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Abbreviation: HHS. 

Agency: Department of Homeland Security[B]; 
Abbreviation: DHS. 

Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency[B]; 
Abbreviation: FEMA. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development[A]; 
Abbreviation: HUD. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Abbreviation: DOI. 

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Abbreviation: DOJ. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
Abbreviation: DOL. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Abbreviation: State. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Abbreviation: Treas. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Abbreviation: DOT. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Abbreviation: VA. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Abbreviation: EPA. 

Agency: General Services Administration[A]; 
Abbreviation: GSA. 

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Abbreviation: NASA. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Abbreviation: NSF. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Abbreviation: NRC. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Abbreviation: OPM. 

Agency: Small Business Administration; 
Abbreviation: SBA. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Abbreviation: SSA. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Four agencies' data are not included in our current review. CIA did 
not provide information in response to our requests, so we were unable 
to determine whether it had internal controls ensuring that its data 
are accurate and complete. GSA, HUD, and USDA were not included in our 
statistical analysis for this report because we determined that the 
agencies did not have internal controls ensuring that their data are 
accurate and complete or they acknowledged material limitations of 
their data. USDA was also omitted in our March 2007 report on the 
fiscal year 2005 annual reports. 

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

[End of table] 

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. 

Most recently, our March 2007 FOIA report discussed the fiscal year 
2005 annual report data, as well as the agency improvement plans 
submitted in response to the Executive Order.[Footnote 27] Among other 
things, we observed that agencies showed great variations in the median 
times to process requests (less than 10 days for some agency components 
to more than 100 days at others) but that the ability to determine 
trends in processing times is limited because these times are reported 
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). We suggested that to improve 
the usefulness of the statistics in agency annual FOIA reports, 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. The Openness Promotes Effectiveness 
in Our National Government Act (OPEN Government Act) of 2007, enacted 
December 31, 2007, as Public Law 110-175, included provisions expanding 
reporting requirements to include average and range information, along 
with median processing time statistics. 

Regarding the improvement plans, we reported in 2007 that the 25 agency 
plans mostly included goals and timetables addressing the areas of 
improvement emphasized by the Executive Order. We noted that almost all 
plans contained measurable goals and timetables for avoiding or 
reducing backlog.[Footnote 28] Although details of a few plans could be 
improved, all the plans focused on making measurable improvements and 
formed a reasonable basis for carrying out the goals of the Executive 
Order. 

Trends in FOIA Processing Appear Similar to Previous Years: 

The data reported by 21 major agencies in annual FOIA reports from 2002 
to 2006 reveal a number of general trends. (Data from four agencies are 
omitted, as discussed below.) Among these trends are increases in 
requests received, processed, and pending. Specifically, the public 
continued to submit more requests for information from the federal 
government through FOIA, and the numbers of requests processed also 
increased. In addition, the number of pending requests increased 
because of increases at DHS, which accounted for about half of all 
pending requests at the end of fiscal year 2006. However, the rate of 
increase in pending requests was less than in the previous year. 

Four Agencies' Statistics Are Not Included Because Their Completeness 
and Accuracy Were Not Assured: 

Our statistical analysis omits data from the General Services 
Administration (GSA), and the Departments of Agriculture and Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD), because we did not have reasonable 
assurance that the data in their fiscal year 2006 FOIA annual reports 
were accurate and complete. We also omitted the Central Intelligence 
Agency, which did not provide information in response to our requests, 
so we could not assess its data reliability. The other three agencies 
did not provide evidence of internal controls that would provide 
reasonable assurance that FOIA data were recorded completely and 
correctly, or they acknowledged material limitations of the data. 

The accuracy of annual report data is important so that government FOIA 
operations can be monitored and understood by the Congress and the 
public. To provide reasonable assurance of accuracy, agencies rely on 
internal controls to minimize the risk that data are incomplete or 
incorrect.[Footnote 29] Specific examples of such controls include 
supervisory or other reviews of the quality of data entry, spot checks 
of selected records, software edit checks of data entered (such as 
prevention of duplicate entries), and other manual or automatic 
processes to detect data entry errors. 

We determined that GSA did not have adequate internal controls to 
provide reasonable assurance that the data in its fiscal year 2006 
annual report were accurate and complete. Although about one-third of 
GSA FOIA requests were handled by FOIA staff at GSA headquarters, 
mechanisms had not been established to verify that data were entered 
correctly into the system that tracked FOIA requests. One staff person 
was responsible for entering data, but the data were not checked 
periodically to ensure that they were correct. Agency officials told us 
that errors could be caught if, for example, the GSA program office 
responding to a request observed a discrepancy when the request letter 
was transmitted to the program office. However, they acknowledged that 
for the fiscal year 2006 annual report, the FOIA office did not perform 
regular reviews or spot checks of the data to check for errors. Since 
the 2006 annual report was prepared, GSA has increased the staff at the 
headquarters FOIA office, and it has changed its approach to FOIA 
tracking by implementing a centralized tracking system for requests 
handled both by headquarters and by the GSA regional offices. According 
to officials, the centralized tracking system provides the agency with 
additional controls, but GSA had not established procedures for checks 
to ensure that information on requests was entered correctly at all 
stages. Until the agency establishes checks of data entered or other 
internal controls, such as periodic reviews, it will have reduced 
assurance that data are captured completely and accurately. 

Data from HUD are omitted because HUD officials told us that the fiscal 
year 2006 annual FOIA report statistics were not accurate. As part of 
its improvement plan implementation, HUD performed an organizational 
realignment in which FOIA processing functions were transferred to the 
Office of the Executive Secretariat. According to the Executive 
Secretary, after the realignment, the office found that many requests 
in the department's FOIA tracking system were incorrectly recorded as 
open, although they had in fact been closed. According to this 
official, the department's regional and field offices had not been 
consistently closing requests in the system, resulting in inaccuracies. 
In addition, not all field offices were using the tracking system, but 
were using spreadsheets and other means of tracking. According to HUD 
officials, they were taking actions to remedy these problems by working 
with the field offices to make sure that data were entered correctly 
and cases closed out properly. Also, in the department's progress 
report on its improvement plan, HUD reported that it had selected and 
was acquiring a new automated FOIA tracking system. According to the 
department, in December 2007, it began implementing this system and 
training staff in its use, and all offices (including headquarters) 
would be required to use it. However, the implementation was not yet 
complete departmentwide. Further, although the department planned to 
develop policies and procedures to govern the use of the system, it had 
not yet done so; if well designed, these policies and procedures could 
help ensure that all FOIA offices, including regional and field 
offices, are using the tracking system consistently and that 
information is entered accurately and promptly. Until the department 
develops and establishes such policies and procedures, it will be 
unable to provide annual report data that are accurate and complete. 

We are also omitting data from the Department of Agriculture. In our 
March 2007 report on the FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 
2005,[Footnote 30] we omitted data from the department's annual FOIA 
report because a major component acknowledged material limitations in 
its data. Although most Agriculture components expressed confidence in 
their data, one component did not: the Farm Service Agency, which 
reportedly processed over 80 percent of the department's total FOIA 
requests. According to this agency's FOIA Officer, portions of the 
agency's data in annual reports were not accurate or complete.[Footnote 
31] We recommended that the department revise its FOIA improvement plan 
to include activities, goals, and milestones to improve data 
reliability for the Farm Service Agency and to monitor results. Since 
then, Agriculture has taken actions to improve the reliability of its 
data, such as issuing guidance and conducting training. The department 
is also developing an electronic tracking software system that it 
expects to improve the timeliness, accuracy, depth, and breadth of the 
department's FOIA reporting. However, our reliability assessment was 
performed toward the end of fiscal year 2006, and our recommendation 
was made in March 2007, which was after the data for the annual report 
were assembled. Thus the department's actions were not undertaken in 
time to affect the statistics for fiscal year 2006. If the department 
continues its improvement efforts, including establishing internal 
controls and processes to ensure that data are entered accurately and 
completely, it should increase its assurance that the FOIA data 
collected by the Farm Service Agency are complete and accurate. 

Increases in Requests Received and Processed Are Generally Slowing: 

The numbers of FOIA requests received and processed continue to rise, 
but the rate of increase has flattened in recent years. Figure 2 shows 
total requests reported for the 21 agencies for fiscal years 2002 
through 2006. This figure shows SSA's share separately because of the 
large number of requests that the agency reported. As the figure shows, 
not only do SSA's results dwarf those for all other agencies, they also 
reveal a major jump in requests received and processed from 2004 to 
2005 (an increase of 92 percent), as well as a continued rise in 2006 
(an increase of 8 percent). In 2005, SSA attributed the jump to an 
improvement in its method of counting requests and stated that, in 
previous years, these requests were undercounted. Because of the 
undercount in previous years and the high volume of SSA's requests, 
including SSA's statistics in governmentwide data would obscure year-
to-year comparisons. 

Figure 2: Total FOIA Requests with SSA Shown Separately, Fiscal Years 
2002-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

The figure is a stacked vertical bar graph, depicting the following 
data: 

Fiscal year 2002: 
Number of requests received: SSA: 292,884; 
Number of requests received: Total without SSA: 790,998; 
Number of requests processed: SSA: 268,488; 
Number of requests processed: Total without SSA: 756,554. 

Fiscal year 2003: 
Number of requests received: SSA: 705,280; 
Number of requests received: Total without SSA: 1,275,310; 
Number of requests processed: SSA: 704,941; 
Number of requests processed: Total without SSA: 1,275,800; 

Fiscal year 2004: 
Number of requests received: SSA: 1,450,490; 
Number of requests received: Total without SSA: 2,099,200
Number of requests processed: SSA: 1,453,620; 
Number of requests processed: Total without SSA: 2,123,210. 

Fiscal year 2005: 
Number of requests received: SSA: 17,257,912; 
Number of requests received: Total without SSA: 2,569,100; 
Number of requests processed: SSA: 17,263,200; 
Number of requests processed: Total without SSA: 2,525,470. 

Fiscal year 2006: 
Number of requests received: SSA: 18,691,312; 
Number of requests received: Total without SSA: 2,565,330; 
Number of requests processed: SSA: 18,691,000; 
Number of requests processed: Total without SSA: 2,591,370. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2006 (self-reported 
data). 

[End of figure] 

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 2006), requests 
received increased by about 23 percent, and requests processed 
increased by about 23 percent. Most of this rise occurred from fiscal 
years 2002 to 2003: about 18 percent, both for requests received and 
for requests processed. In contrast, in the last two fiscal years, the 
rise was much less: for requests received, the rise was roughly 
3 percent from fiscal year 2004 to 2005 and another 1 percent to 2006; 
for requests processed, the rise was about 2 percent from fiscal year 
2004 to 2005 and another 2 percent from fiscal year 2005 to 2006. 

Figure 3: Total FOIA Requests and FOIA Requests Processed, Omitting 
SSA, Fiscal Years 2002-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year 2002: 
Number of requests received: 1,987,530; 
Number of requests processed: 1,984,260. 

Fiscal year 2003: 
Number of requests received: 2,422,610; 
Number of requests processed: 2,424,190. 

Fiscal year 2004: 
Number of requests received: 2,464,210; 
Number of requests processed: 2,494,760. 

Fiscal year 2005: 
Number of requests received: 2,525,470; 
Number of requests processed: 2,569,100. 

Fiscal year 2006: 
Number of requests received: 2,565,330; 
Number of requests processed: 2,591,370. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2006 (self-reported 
data). 

[End of figure] 

Specifically with regard to SSA, in fiscal year 2006, as in the 
previous year, the vast majority of requests reported fall into a 
category SSA calls "simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff;" 
according to SSA, these are typically 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, and disability insurance, among other 
things.[Footnote 32] SSA stated that these requests are handled by 
personnel in about 1,500 locations in SSA, including field and district 
offices and teleservice centers.[Footnote 33] Such requests are almost 
always granted,[Footnote 34] according to SSA, and most receive 
immediate responses.[Footnote 35] According to SSA officials, they 
report these requests because, as discussed earlier, Justice guidance 
instructs agencies to treat Privacy Act requests (requests for records 
concerning oneself) as FOIA requests and report them in the annual 
reports.[Footnote 36] 

SSA attributed the jump that occurred in fiscal year 2005 to an 
improvement in its method of counting these simple requests, which can 
be straightforwardly captured by its automated systems. For the past 
several years, these simple requests have accounted for the major 
portion of all SSA requests reported (see table 3). In fiscal year 
2006, all but about 34,000 of SSA's over 18 million requests fell into 
this category. From fiscal years 2002 to 2005, SSA's FOIA reports 
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 2002-2006: 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Total requests received: 18,691,031; 
Total requests processed: 18,691,303; 
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 18,656,701; 
Percentage of total processed: 99.8. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Total requests received: 17,257,886; 
Total requests processed: 17,262,315; 
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 17,223,713; 
Percentage of total processed: 99.8. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Total requests received: 1,453,619; 
Total requests processed: 1,450,493; 
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 1,270,512; 
Percentage of total processed: 87.6. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Total requests received: 705,280; 
Total requests processed: 704,941; 
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 678,849; 
Percentage of total processed: 96.3. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Total requests received: 268,488; 
Total requests processed: 292,884; 
Simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff: 245,877; 
Percentage of total processed: 84.0. 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA FOIA reports (self-reported data). 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 37] The rest of agencies combined account for only 
about 3 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). 

Table 4: FOIA Requests Received, Fiscal Year 2006: 

Agency: SSA; 
Total: 18,691,031; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 87.82; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): [Empty]. 

Agency: SSA (excluding simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff); 
Total: 34,602; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): [Empty]; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 1.32. 

Agency: VA; 
Total: 1,938,206; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 9.11; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 73.81. 

Agency: HHS; 
Total: 258,152; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 1.21; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 9.83. 

Agency: DHS; 
Total: 137,871; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.65; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 5.25. 

Agency: DOD; 
Total: 82,691; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.39; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 3.15. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Total: 53,992; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.25; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 2.06. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Total: 38,559; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.18; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 1.47. 

Agency: DOL; 
Total: 23,194; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.11; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.88. 

Agency: OPM; 
Total: 12,528; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.06; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.48. 

Agency: EPA; Total: 11,667; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.05; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.44. 

Agency: DOT; 
Total: 8,867; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.04; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.34. 

Agency: SBA; 
Total: 6,259; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.03; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.24. 

Agency: State; 
Total: 4,937; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.02; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.19. 

Agency: DOI; 
Total: 4,804; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.02; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.18. 

Agency: DOE; 
Total: 3,609; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.02; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.14. 

Agency: DOC; 
Total: 2,018; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.01; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.08. 

Agency: ED; 
Total: 1,858; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.01; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.07. 

Agency: NASA; 
Total: 1,238; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.01; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.05. 

Agency: NSF; 
Total: 328; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.00; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.01. 

Agency: NRC; 
Total: 320; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.00; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.01. 

Agency: AID; 
Total: 276; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 1): 0.00; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): 0.01. 

Agency: Total including SSA (line 1); 
Total: 21,282,405; 
Percentage of 
total including SSA (line 1): [Empty]; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): [Empty]. 

Agency: Total including SSA (line 2); 
Total: 2,625,976; 
Percentage of 
total including SSA (line 1): [Empty]; 
Percentage of total including SSA (line 2): [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FOIA annual reports for 2006 (self-reported 
data). 

Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

CIA, GSA, HUD, and USDA data have been omitted because we could not be 
assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

[End of table] 

Most Requests Are Granted in Full: 

Most FOIA requests in 2006 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. 

Compared to 2005, there was a slight increase in the percentage of 
denials: from 0.75 percent to 1.18 percent of total requests received 
(excluding SSA); this is an increase of 10,860 denials. The percentage 
of requests not disclosed for other reasons (excluding SSA) decreased 
from 8.0 percent to 7.9 percent (a decrease of 2,644 requests not 
disclosed for other reasons). 

Table 5: Disposition of Processed FOIA Requests for Fiscal Year 2006: 

Disposition: Full grants; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 2,235,665; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 87.1; 
Statistics including SSA: Number: 20,925,227; 
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 98.4. 

Disposition: Partial grants; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 102,156; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 4.0; 
Statistics including SSA: Number: 102,394; 
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.5. 

Disposition: Denials; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 29,808; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 1.2; 
Statistics including SSA: Number: 30,266; 
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 0.1. 

Disposition: Not disclosed for other reasons; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 199,402; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: 7.8; 
Statistics including SSA: Number: 200,447; 
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: 1.0. 

Disposition: Total; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Number: 2,567,031; 
Statistics excluding SSA[A]: Percentage: [Empty]; 
Statistics including SSA: Number: 21,258,334; 
Statistics including SSA: Percentage: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FOIA annual reports for 2006 (self-reported 
data). 

Note: CIA, GSA, HUD, and USDA data have been omitted because we could 
not be assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

[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. 

[End of table] 

As shown in figure 4, three of the seven agencies that handled the 
largest numbers of requests (see table 4) also granted the largest 
percentages of requests in full: the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS), SSA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
Figure 4 shows, by agency, the disposition of requests processed: that 
is, whether a request was 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 
2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Agency: AID; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 16; 	
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 17; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 64. 

Agency: DHS; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 12; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 48; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 40. 

Agency: DOC; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 34; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 19; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 7; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 40. 

Agency: DOD; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 45; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 16; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 36. 

Agency: DOE; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 75; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 8; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 16. 

Agency: DOI; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 48; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 23; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 26. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 36; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 13; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 49. 

Agency: DOL; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 39; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 30; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 8; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 22. 

Agency: DOT; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 39; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 26; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 32. 

Agency: ED; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 42; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 38; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 2; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 18. 

Agency: EPA; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 33; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 5; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 61; 

Agency: HHS; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 94; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 0; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 6. 

Agency: NASA; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 34; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 30; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 4; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 32. 

Agency: NRC; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 39; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 30; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 4; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 28. 

Agency: NSF; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 9; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 72; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 2; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 17. 

Agency: OPM; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 67; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 30; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 0; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 3. 

Agency: SBA; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 91; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 3; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 5. 

Agency: SSA; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 100; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 0; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 0; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 0. 

Agency: State; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 11; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 22; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 4; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 62. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 58; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 7;
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 33. 

Agency: VA; 
Percentage of distribution, grants: 96; 
Percentage of distribution, partial grants: 0; 
Percentage of distribution, denials: 1; 
Percentage of distribution, not disclosed for other reasons: 3. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2006 (self-reported data). 

Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

CIA, GSA, HUD, and USDA data have been omitted because we could not be 
assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

[End of figure] 

As the figure shows, the numbers of fully granted requests varied 
widely among agencies in fiscal year 2006. Four agencies made full 
grants of requested records in over 80 percent of cases they processed-
-HHS, SSA, VA, and the Small Business Administration (SBA). This is a 
decrease from last year, when two other agencies--Energy and the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM)--also made full grants of requested 
records in over 80 percent of the cases they processed. This year, 
Energy provided full grants 75 percent of the time, compared to 82 
percent last year, and OPM provided full grants 67 percent of the time, 
compared to 81 percent last year. 

In contrast, several agencies tended not to make full grants. Of 21 
agencies, 10 made full grants of requested records in less than 40 
percent of their cases (compared to 12 in 2005). Four of these 10 
agencies--the Agency for International Development (AID), DHS, the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), and State--made full grants in less 
than 20 percent of cases processed; in contrast, in 2005, only 2 
agencies (NSF and State) fell into this category. 

This variance among agencies in the disposition of requests has been 
evident in prior years as well.[Footnote 38] 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 most of its requests are for 
personal records that are routinely made available to the individuals 
concerned (or to others with their consent). 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 to prevent 
disclosure of personal or other exempt information. For example, NSF 
reported in its fiscal year 2005 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 2006, the reported time required to process requests (by track) 
varied considerably among agencies. Table 6 presents data on median 
processing times for fiscal year 2006. 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. 

Table 6: Median Days to Process Requests for Fiscal Year 2006, by 
Track: 

Agency: AID; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Single: 127; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 46; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 388. 

Agency: DHS; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-365; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 17-232; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 7-233; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 7-359. 

Agency: DOC; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 12; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 45; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 44; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 26. 

Agency: DOD; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 17; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 52; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 0; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 73. 

Agency: DOE; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-178; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 30-431; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-6; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 3-267. 

Agency: DOI; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-145; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 4-79; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-28; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 4-1200. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 0-290; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 12-408; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 3-398; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 4-750. 

Agency: DOL; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 3-30; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 4-57; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 2-19; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 5-88. 

Agency: DOT; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 1-36; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 14-175; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 9-60; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 4-184. 

Agency: ED; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 7-478; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 12-279; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-15; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 7-397. 

Agency: EPA; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 15-101; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 34-156; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 8-181; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 7-138. 

Agency: HHS; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 10-70; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 2-473; 
Type of request processing track: Single: 18-399; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 14-145; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 4-307. 

Agency: NASA; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 5-140; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 7-91; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-60; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 33-142. 

Agency: NRC; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 13; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 230; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 7; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 12-77. 

Agency: NSF; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Single: 18; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 54. 

Agency: OPM; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 13; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: [Empty]. 

Agency: SBA; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Single: 7; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 15. 

Agency: SSA; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 13; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 30; 
Type of request processing track: Single: 9; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 4-37. 

Agency: State; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 54; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 210; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 232; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 193. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: 2-24; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 3-224; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-9; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 5-200. 

Agency: VA; 
Type of request processing track: Simple: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Complex: 1-73; 
Type of request processing track: Single: [Empty]; 
Type of request processing track: Expedited: 1-20; 
Type of request processing track: Pending: 1-297. 

Source: GAO analysis of FOIA annual reports for fiscal year 2006 (self-
reported data). 

Notes: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

CIA, GSA, HUD, and USDA data have been omitted because we could not be 
assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

For agencies that reported processing times by component, the table 
indicates the range of reported component median times. 

Empty indicates that the agency did not report any median time for a 
given track in a given year. 

Numbers reported in fractions have been rounded. In addition, AID and 
State median times are reported in calendar days rather than working 
days. DOI uses three processing tracks: simple, normal, and complex; 
the table combines the simple and normal tracks. DOJ reported pending 
median times by track; the table combines all tracks. 

[End of table] 

As the table shows, 10 agencies had components that reported processing 
simple requests in less than or equal to 10 days: these components are 
parts of DHS, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, 
Education, HHS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA), and the Treasury. For each of these agencies, the lower value 
of the reported ranges is less than or equal to 10. On the other hand, 
median time to process simple requests is relatively long at seven 
organizations--components of DHS, Energy, Interior, Justice, 
Education, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NASA--as 
shown by median ranges whose upper-end values are greater than 100 
days. 

For complex requests, the picture is similarly mixed. Components of six 
agencies (the Interior, Labor, HHS, NASA, 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, Justice, Transportation, Education, EPA, HHS, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, State, and the Treasury) reported relatively 
long median times to process complex requests--with median days greater 
than 100. 

Five agencies (AID, HHS, NSF, SBA, and SSA) reported using single-track 
processing. The median processing times for single-track processing 
varied from 7 days (at SBA) to 399 days (at an HHS component). 

The median processing times for requests pending also varied widely 
among the agencies. In 2006, eight agencies reported median processing 
times for pending requests greater than 1 year (defined as 251 business 
days) in length. These eight agencies are AID, DHS, Energy, the 
Interior, Justice, Education, HHS, and VA. One agency reported a 
component having a median processing time for its pending cases of 
1,200 days, which is nearly 5 years. 

As we reported in our March 2007 report, 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).[Footnote 39] 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. This was the basis for the suggestion in our 
previous report that the Congress consider amending the act to require 
agencies to report average times and ranges; this requirement is a 
provision of the OPEN Government Act, enacted December 31, 2007, as 
Public Law 110-175. 

Increase in Pending Cases for 21 Agencies Is Mostly Associated with 
DHS: 

In addition to the increase in numbers of requests processed at the 21 
agencies, the number of pending cases--requests carried over from one 
year to the next--has increased. In 2002, pending requests at the 21 
agencies were reported to number about 135,000, whereas in 2006, about 
218,000--38 percent more--were reported. In fiscal year 2006, as shown 
in figure 5, the rate of increase flattened: the pending totals rose 12 
percent from 2005, compared to a rise of 20 percent from fiscal year 
2004 to 2005. 

Figure 5: Total FOIA Requests Pending at End of Year, 2002-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of requests, agencies without SSA: 132,970; 
Number of requests, all agencies: 135,362. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of requests, agencies without SSA: 134,688; 
Number of requests, all agencies: 137,419. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of requests, agencies without SSA: 148,934; 
Number of requests, all agencies: 154,791. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of requests, agencies without SSA: 191,137; 
Number of requests, all agencies: 192,565. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of requests, agencies without SSA: 217,009; 
Number of requests, all agencies: 218,165. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2006 (self-reported 
data). 

[End of figure] 

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. 

In contrast, since its establishment in 2003, DHS has accounted for a 
major and increasing portion of pending requests governmentwide, as 
shown in figure 6.[Footnote 40] Although 11 other agencies reported 
that their numbers of pending cases had increased since 2003, these 
increases were offset by decreases at other agencies, so that, as the 
figure shows, pending cases for the other 20 agencies combined are 
relatively stable. 

Figure 6: DHS Portion of Pending Requests, Fiscal Years 2003-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of requests, DHS: 28,958; 
Number of requests, total without DHS: 108,461. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of requests, DHS: 45,803; 
Number of requests, total without DHS: 108,988. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of requests, DHS: 82,591; 
Number of requests, total without DHS: 109,974. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of requests, DHS: 108,472; 
Number of requests, total without DHS: 109,693. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2006 (self-reported 
data). 

Note: Figure shows years since 2003, rather than 2002, because DHS had 
not yet been established in 2002. 

[End of figure] 

Within DHS, about 89 percent of pending cases are from Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS), which receives the vast majority of all 
FOIA requests sent to the department--over 100,000 incoming requests 
annually. According to the department, most of CIS's FOIA requests come 
from individuals and their representatives seeking information 
contained within the so-called Alien Files (A-files); this information 
may be used in applying for immigration benefits or in immigration 
proceedings, as well as for genealogy studies. One issue in relation to 
these files is that about 55 million hard-copy A-files are shared with 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which can lead to delays in 
locating, referring, and processing documents.[Footnote 41] According 
to the department, CIS and ICE have convened a working group to 
establish a streamlined approach to processing documents in the A-
files, and they are also assessing digitization of the files, which 
would allow both components to electronically access any file.[Footnote 
42] 

Table 7 shows the percentage of the total pending requests that each 
agency accounted for in fiscal year 2006; to provide an idea of the 
scale of these requests in comparison to the agency's annual workload, 
the last column provides the number received. As the table shows, the 
six agencies that accounted for most requests received also accounted 
for the most requests pending, although DHS's rank in the number of 
pending requests was higher than its rank in the number of received 
requests. The table also shows the great variation in the relationship 
between pending and received numbers for individual agencies.[Footnote 
43] 

Table 7: Agency Proportions of Pending and Received Requests for Fiscal 
Year 2006: 

Agency: DHS; 
Pending: Total: 108,472; 
Pending: Rank: 1; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 49.72; 
Received: Total: 137,871; 
Received: Rank: 3; 
Received: Percentage of total: 5.25. 

Agency: VA; 
Pending: Total: 38,696; 
Pending: Rank: 2; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 17.74; 
Received: Total: 1,938,206; 
Received: Rank: 1; Received: 
Percentage of total: 73.81. 

Agency: HHS; 
Pending: Total: 26,063; 
Pending: Rank: 3; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 11.95; 
Received: Total: 258,152; 
Received: Rank: 2; 
Received: Percentage of total: 9.83. 

Agency: DOD; 
Pending: Total: 18,216; 
Pending: Rank: 4; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 8.35; 
Received: Total: 82,691; 
Received: Rank: 4; 
Received: Percentage of total: 3.15. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Pending: Total: 8,004; 
Pending: Rank: 5; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 3.67; 
Received: Total: 53,992; 
Received: Rank: 5; 
Received: Percentage of total: 2.06. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Pending: Total: 3,924; 
Pending: Rank: 6; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 1.80; 
Received: Total: 38,559; 
Received: Rank: 6; 
Received: Percentage of total: 1.47. 

Agency: State; 
Pending: Total: 3,799; 
Pending: Rank: 7; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 1.74; 
Received: Total: 4,937; 
Received: Rank: 13; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.19. 

Agency: DOT; 
Pending: Total: 2,197; 
Pending: Rank: 8; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 1.01; 
Received: Total: 8,867; 
Received: Rank: 11; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.34. 

Agency: EPA; 
Pending: Total: 1,973; 
Pending: Rank: 9; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.90; 
Received: Total: 11,667; 
Received: Rank: 10; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.44. 

Agency: DOI; 
Pending: Total: 1,481; 
Pending: Rank: 10; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.68; 
Received: Total: 4,804; 
Received: Rank: 14; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.18. 

Agency: SSA[A]; 
Pending: Total: 1,156; 
Pending: Rank: 11; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.53; 
Received: Total: 34,602; 
Received: Rank: 7; 
Received: Percentage of total: 1.32. 

Agency: OPM; 
Pending: Total: 925; 
Pending: Rank: 12; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.42; 
Received: Total: 12,528; 
Received: Rank: 9; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.48. 

Agency: DOE; 
Pending: Total: 910; 
Pending: Rank: 13; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.42; 
Received: Total: 3,609; 
Received: Rank: 15; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.14. 

Agency: DOL; 
Pending: Total: 906; 
Pending: Rank: 14; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.42; 
Received: Total: 23,194; 
Received: Rank: 8; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.88. 

Agency: ED; 
Pending: Total: 539; 
Pending: Rank: 15; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.25; 
Received: Total: 1,858; 
Received: Rank: 17; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.07. 

Agency: DOC; 
Pending: Total: 309; 
Pending: Rank: 16; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.14; 
Received: Total: 2,018; 
Received: Rank: 16; Received: 
Percentage of total: 0.08. 

Agency: AID; 
Pending: Total: 267; 
Pending: Rank: 17; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.12; 
Received: Total: 276; 
Received: Rank: 21; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.01. 

Agency: NASA; 
Pending: Total: 241; 
Pending: Rank: 18; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.11; 
Received: Total: 1,238; 
Received: Rank: 18; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.05. 

Agency: SBA; 
Pending: Total: 46; 
Pending: Rank: 19; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.02; 
Received: Total: 6,259; 
Received: Rank: 12; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.24. 

Agency: NRC; 
Pending: Total: 36; 
Pending: Rank: 20; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.02; 
Received: Total: 320; 
Received: Rank: 20; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.01. 

Agency: NSF; 
Pending: Total: 5; 
Pending: Rank: 21; 
Pending: Percentage of total: 0.00; 
Received: Total: 328; 
Received: Rank: 19; 
Received: Percentage of total: 0.01. 

Agency: Total; 
Pending: Total: 218,165; 
Received: Total: 2,625,976. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

[A] Excluding simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff. 

[End of table] 

Another way to consider progress in reducing pending cases is through 
individual agency processing rates--that is, the number of requests 
that an agency processes relative to the number it receives. Agencies 
that process more requests than they receive will decrease the number 
of pending cases remaining at the end of a given year. From 2002 to 
2006, individual agencies show mixed results in this regard. In figure 
7, bars extending above the centerline at 100 percent indicate that an 
agency reported processing more requests than it received in that year, 
whereas bars dropping below the centerline indicate that it reported 
processing fewer than it received.[Footnote 44] 

Figure 7: Agency FOIA Processing Rate for 22 Agencies: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Agency: AID; 
Processing rate, 2002: 105%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 74%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 82%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 53%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 166%. 

Agency: DHS; 
Processing rate, 2002: N/A; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 90%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 77%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 81%. 

Agency: DOC; 
Processing rate, 2002: 96%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 102%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 98%. 

Agency: DOD; 
Processing rate, 2002: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 96%. 

Agency: DOE; 
Processing rate, 2002: 114%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 107%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 102%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 107%; 

Agency: DOI; 
Processing rate, 2002: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 89%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 92%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 95%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 106%. 

Agency: DOJ; 
Processing rate, 2002: 102%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 102%. 

Agency: DOL; 
Processing rate, 2002: 102%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 99%. 

Agency: DOT; 
Processing rate, 2002: 98%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 105%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 98%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 99%. 

Agency: ED; 
Processing rate, 2002: 96%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 93%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 92%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 104%. 

Agency: EPA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 143%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 113%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 104%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 91%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 109%. 

Agency: FEMA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 84%; 
Processing rate, 2003: N/A; 
Processing rate, 2004: N/A; 
Processing rate, 2005: N/A; 
Processing rate, 2006: N/A. 

Agency: HHS; 
Processing rate, 2002: 98%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 99%. 

Agency: NASA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 110%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 91. 

Agency: NRC; 
Processing rate, 2002: 98%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 96%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 105%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 93%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 114%. 

Agency: NSF; 
Processing rate, 2002: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 104%. 

Agency: OPM; 
Processing rate, 2002: 97%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 76%
Processing rate, 2005: 90%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 130%. 

Agency: SBA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 103%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 100%. 

Agency: SSA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 109%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 100% 
Processing rate, 2006: 100%. 

Agency: State; 
Processing rate, 2002: 148%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 168%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 126%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 84%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 78%. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Processing rate, 2002: 102%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 101%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 102%. 

Agency: VA; 
Processing rate, 2002: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2003: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2004: 99%; 
Processing rate, 2005: 100%; 
Processing rate, 2006: 100%. 

Source: FOIA annual reports for fiscal years 2002-2006 (self-reported 
data). 

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 reported separately, and DHS was not yet 
established. In 2003 to 2006, DHS data were reported and included 
FEMA's data. 

CIA, GSA, HUD, and USDA data have been omitted because we could not be 
assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

[End of figure] 

Agencies' Oldest Requests May Date Back Several Years: 

In Justice's guidance on the annual reports for fiscal year 2006, it 
directed agencies to include additional statistics as part of the new 
section on agencies' progress implementing their improvement plans. 
These additional statistics included the time ranges of requests 
pending.[Footnote 45] Based on these statistics, figure 8 provides a 
timeline showing the oldest pending requests reported by each of the 
agencies. As seen in the figure, as of the end of calendar year 2006, 
the age of the oldest pending requests ranged from less than 1 year to 
about 18 years. Note that these requests were those reported in the 
fiscal year 2006 annual reports; they do not necessarily remain open. 

Figure 8: Oldest Pending Requests, as Reported by Agencies in Fiscal 
Year 2006 Annual Reports: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a timeline depicting the following data: 

Oldest pending requests: 7 agencies, over ten years: 
FOJ: 7/1989; 
DOD: 3/1991; 
Treasury: 3/1993; 
DOE: 3/1993; 
HHS: 10/1994; 
EPA: 5/1995; 
DOI: 1/1996. 

Oldest pending requests: 6 agencies, between 5 and 10 years: 
State: 11/1997; 
DHS: 11/1998; 
OPM: 1999; 
VA: 3/2000; 
AID: 5/2000; 
DOT: 8/2000. 

Oldest pending requests: 3 agencies, between 2 and 5 years: 
DOC: 8/2002; 
ED: 12/2003; 
NASA: 11/2004. 

Oldest pending requests: 5 agencies, less than 1 to 2 years: 
DOL: 4/2005; 
SSA: 8/2005; 
NRC: 10/2005; 
NSF: 1/2006; 
SBA: 5/2006. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

[End of figure] 

Several Factors Contribute to FOIA Cases Remaining Open beyond the 
Statutory Limit: 

Agencies are required to meet certain time frames for determining 
whether to comply with requests: generally 20 business days from 
receipt of the request, although this time may be extended by 10 days 
in "unusual circumstances," such as when requests involve a voluminous 
amount of records or require consultation with another agency. The 
Congress did not establish a statutory deadline for making releasable 
records available, but instead required agencies to make them available 
promptly. 

However, it is not uncommon for agencies to spend much more than the 
statutory 20 or 30 days to determine whether records can be released 
and to supply the records. According to our examination of selected 
case files and discussions with agency officials, the factors that 
contribute to requests remaining open include the following: 

* Requests may involve large volumes of responsive records. 

* Requests may require extensive review and consultations. 

* Agencies may need to notify submitters of information before 
disclosure. 

* Requests may be delayed until ongoing investigations are completed. 

Finally, at one agency component, requests more than 6 years old 
received low priority because the component believed that they could no 
longer be pursued in litigation. 

Requests may involve large volumes of responsive records. For requests 
that involve large volumes of responsive records, it may take 
significant time to assemble, review and redact, and duplicate records. 
In addition, processing of such requests may be delayed while requests 
received earlier are processed. In addressing such requests, agencies 
report that they contact requesters to determine whether a more limited 
or targeted selection of records will meet their needs, and that this 
can lead requesters to narrow their requests. In addition, agencies may 
use multitrack processing, putting voluminous or complex requests in a 
separate queue (which allows relatively simple requests to be processed 
more quickly).[Footnote 46] 

The selection of agencies' oldest case files that we reviewed included 
several examples of voluminous requests. For example, at Defense, 5 of 
the 10 oldest cases remained open, in part because the responsive 
records were voluminous. For one request for records on the 1972 
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), Defense's case file indicated 
that the request involved the review and coordination of 936 pages of 
top secret documents. A request for 1970 SALT records involved 613 
pages of top secret documents. 

At HHS, 4 of the 10 oldest case files included references to voluminous 
records. For example, for a media request for background information on 
a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on an 
incident involving an error at a hospital, the centers indicated that 
the responsive documents were bulky, consisting of about 500 to 600 
pages of records. 

At VA, all 10 oldest pending requests, dating from 2003 to 2005, were 
in the VA Office of the Inspector General. For one of these cases, the 
responsive records were described as voluminous (about 700 pages) and 
in need of review by legal staff; the requester was informed that 
because of this, they would be placed in a queue with other voluminous 
requests requiring legal review. The request reached the head of the 
queue about 2 years later (May 2007), and three incremental releases 
were made from May to June 2007. (According to VA, this request was 
closed on August 17, 2007.) VA officials also described a more recent 
voluminous request involving a database containing more than 72,000 
active files, with 431 data elements and over 4 million PDF files, each 
of which had to be reviewed for personal data. 

At Justice, two of the six oldest case files included letters 
explaining that because of the high volume of responsive records 
associated with each, the requests had been placed in the pending queue 
for processing. In one case, a letter indicated that the request had 
moved from number 91 in the pending queue in October 1990 to number 54 
in November 1993; according to the letter, the processing delay was 
caused by large numbers of requests received, as well as the need to 
devote part of the office's resources solely to processing documents in 
response to legislative requirements (the President John Fitzgerald 
Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992). 

Requests may require extensive review and consultations. Review of 
requests may require coordination with many organizational components, 
or they may require the agency to consult with other agencies. If 
responsive records are classified, they must be reviewed and redacted 
by personnel with appropriate clearances. Classified or intelligence 
issues may involve both internal reviews and external consultation when 
other agencies must review and approve the release of information 
gathered before a case can be closed. Agency officials stated that this 
coordination can be time-consuming, especially when it is not clear 
which agencies have ownership of the information. In other cases, 
proper review and redaction may require the involvement of subject-
matter experts or others with specialized knowledge. 

Defense's oldest case files, as described above, included several 
involving top secret documents, which required extensive reviews by 
multiple components before release. All but one of Defense's 10 oldest 
cases showed evidence of consultations and coordination, in some cases 
with multiple organizations (these included Commerce, State, and the 
Central Intelligence Agency). 

In one of Justice's six oldest cases, the responsive documents had been 
sent to external agencies for review of classified documentation to 
determine whether the material warranted continued declassification and 
whether it could be released. 

Agencies may need to notify submitters of information before 
disclosure. Before releasing information under FOIA, federal agencies 
are generally required to provide predisclosure notifications to 
submitters of confidential commercial information.[Footnote 47] 
Officials stated that when agencies receive requests for proprietary, 
acquisition, or procurement records, the submitter notification process 
can delay closure of these cases. For example, NSF officials stated 
that most of their requests are for copies of funded grant proposals, 
which require FOIA staff to contact grantees for approval of the 
release. According to NSF, many of these grantees are academics who are 
not familiar with FOIA processes (including the submitter review 
process); NSF officials state that locating the submitters and 
explaining the process can be time-consuming. 

Requests may be delayed until ongoing investigations are completed. 
According to our analysis of the 10 oldest case files from selected 
agencies, several old requests remained open because they sought 
documents regarding investigations that were still ongoing. At DHS and 
VA, most of the oldest FOIA requests remain open because the responsive 
records are relative to ongoing investigations. Some examples of these 
requests follow: 

* At DHS, 8 of the 10 oldest pending requests (dating from 2000 to 
2001) were requests directed to the Coast Guard for documents on vessel 
incidents (such as collisions between vessels). In these cases, the 
Coast Guard responded to requesters that, as the incident was still 
under investigation, material might be protected from release as part 
of an ongoing law enforcement proceeding; the exemptions cited included 
7(A), which exempts records or information compiled for law enforcement 
purposes to the extent that the production of such records could be 
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The requesters were 
offered the choice of receiving any material available at the time or 
authorizing an extension until the investigation was complete; in these 
cases, requesters asked that requests remain open, pending completion 
of the investigation. 

* At VA, 7 of the 10 oldest pending requests (dating from 2003 to 2005) 
were for documents concerning investigations or reviews by the VA 
Office of the Inspector General. For example, one request was for 
records of an investigation of medical research activities at a VA 
medical center that was opened after employees reported that 
established research procedures were not being properly followed. 
Another was for records regarding complaints filed against a health 
care provider. In these and other cases, requesters were informed that 
the records were not yet releasable and cited exemptions, including 
7(A). For these 7 requests, VA informed requesters that it would keep 
the requests open until the investigations were complete. 

The Director of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy stated that 
the agencies could have simply closed the requests as denials under 
exemption 7(A) and any other applicable exemption (see app. II); she 
also noted that these requests remained open in accordance with the 
requesters' wishes. 

Requests more than 6 years old may receive low priority. At one agency 
component, a set of old cases remained open because the agency believed 
they were no longer subject to litigation. In accordance with the 
general federal statute of limitations, lawsuits against the United 
States generally are barred after 6 years after the right of action 
first accrues.[Footnote 48] At Justice's Criminal Division, requests 
over 6 years old were given lower priority than requests for which 
litigation was deemed likely, and, in some instances, the original 
request processing files were lost. That is, the Criminal Division was 
unable to locate the original processing files for 4 requests that it 
had identified as among its 10 oldest pending requests, dating from 
around the early 1990s. (Justice officials later informed us that one 
of these cases was in fact closed and had been incorrectly 
identified.)[Footnote 49] In August 2007, the Chief of the division's 
FOIA/Privacy Act Unit (now retired) told us that he could not account 
for the loss, but that the unit had recently undergone a move and 
personnel changes, which might have been contributing factors. 
According to this official, the unit was creating replacement files 
from a tracking database and would then take action to close the 
requests. 

According to its former chief, the FOIA/Privacy Act Unit gave priority 
to avoiding litigation, since lawsuits can generate a significantly 
increased workload and slow down other FOIA processing. For example, 
according to this official, the Criminal Division was then processing 
over 30,000 documents as a result of a lawsuit. Criminal Division 
officials stated that because of the magnitude of this task, which was 
subject to supervision by the court and potential sanctions if not 
timely, it was not practical to divert resources to process older 
cases. 

Although the goal of avoiding litigation is reasonable, the lack of 
priority given to the division's oldest case files is inconsistent with 
the department's expressed emphasis on what it termed "an emerging area 
of concern"--the longest-pending FOIA requests that agencies have on 
hand.[Footnote 50] According to Justice, its Office of Information and 
Privacy (which has lead responsibility for providing guidance and 
support to federal agencies on FOIA issues) established as a backlog-
related goal the regular closure of the 10 oldest FOIA requests pending 
at eight senior leadership offices in the department, for which the 
office performs FOIA processing. According to the department, this 
served as an example for other agencies, some of which followed suit. 
(Also, in October 2007, Justice issued new requirements for all 
agencies to report on their 10 oldest pending requests and 10 oldest 
pending consultations received from other agencies.) 

Further, although the statute of limitations may prevent requesters 
from filing suit after 6 years, following a practice that avoids 
applying resources to cases older than this has the potential effect of 
increasing the number of very old open requests having little prospect 
of being closed. 

In response to this issue, the Criminal Division's FOIA/Privacy Act 
Unit began taking action to close the requests that had missing case 
files, according to its former chief. Also, in December 2007, the 
current deputy chief of the Criminal Division told us that an attorney 
had been detailed to work full time on the oldest cases (those dating 
from 2000 and before); according to this official, the Criminal 
Division had decreased its pending list by over 100 cases between 
September 14 and November 29, 2007. However, the division's improvement 
plan did not address closing its oldest cases, and the division had not 
established time frames for doing so. Although the actions described by 
the deputy chief, if implemented appropriately, should help to address 
this issue, establishing goals and time frames would provide further 
assurance that attention to this issue is sustained appropriately. 
Without such goals and time frames, the Criminal Division risks 
perpetuating the tendency for the oldest requests to remain open 
indefinitely. 

Since Implementing Improvement Plans, Several Agencies Reduced Backlogs 
of Overdue or Pending Requests, but the Governmentwide Picture Is 
Incomplete: 

Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392 
and agency improvement plans, many agencies have shown progress in 
decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests as of September 2007. 
Specifically, of 16 agencies we reviewed that were able to provide 
statistics, 9 decreased overdue or pending requests, 5 experienced 
increases, and 2 had no material change. However, the statistics 
provided by these agencies varied widely, representing a mix of overdue 
cases and total pending cases, as well as varying time frames. Further, 
3 of the 21 agencies were unable to provide statistics supporting their 
backlog reduction efforts, and 1 provided statistics by component, 
which could not be aggregated to provide an agencywide result. (The 
remaining agency reported no backlog before or after implementing its 
plan.) Tracking and reporting statistics on overdue cases is not a 
requirement of the annual FOIA reports or of the Executive Order. 
Although both the Executive Order and Justice's implementing guidance 
put a major emphasis on backlog reduction, agencies were given 
flexibility in developing goals and metrics that they considered most 
appropriate in light of their current FOIA operations and individual 
circumstances. As a result, agencies' goals and metrics vary widely, 
and progress could not be assessed against a common metric. Justice's 
most recent guidance directs agencies to set goals for reducing 
backlogs of overdue requests in future fiscal years, which could lead 
to the development of a consistent metric; however, it does not direct 
agencies to monitor and report overdue requests or to develop plans for 
meeting the new goals. 

Certain Agencies Made Progress in Backlog Reduction, While Others Faced 
Challenges: 

Table 8 shows statistics provided by 16 agencies in response to our 
request for numbers of overdue requests before and after the 
implementation of the improvement plans. "After" statistics were as of 
September 14, 2007 (except as noted in the table). "Before" (baseline) 
statistics were generally as of about June 2006.[Footnote 51] As the 
table shows, a few agencies provided statistics on pending requests 
rather than overdue requests. 

Table 8: Statistics on the Change in Numbers of Overdue (or Pending) 
Requests for 16 Agencies: 

Agency: Fall: DHS; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 103,634; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 73,662; 
Fall/rise: Number: -29,972; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -29%. 

Agency: Fall: VA; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 11,794; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 2,244; 
Fall/rise: Number: -9,550; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -81%. 

Agency: Fall: Treas; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 2,147; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 1,353; 
Fall/rise: Number: -794; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -37%. 

Agency: Fall: EPA; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 1,494; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 932[D]; 
Fall/rise: Number: -562; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -38%. 

Agency: Fall: DOI; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 1,212[E]; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 664; 
Fall/rise: Number: -548; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -55%. 

Agency: Fall: DOE (pending); 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 575; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 435[F]; 
Fall/rise: Number: -140; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -24%. 

Agency: Fall: AID; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 462; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 301; 
Fall/rise: Number: -161; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -35%. 

Agency: Fall: DOL; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 443; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 389; 
Fall/rise: Number: -54; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -12%. 

Agency: Fall: NRC; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 30; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 15; 
Fall/rise: Number: -15; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: -50%. 

Agency: No material change: Agency: DOC; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 181; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 188; 
Fall/rise: Number: +7; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: less than 1%. 

Agency: No material change: NSF (pending); 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 5; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 7; 
Fall/rise: Number: +2; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: [G]. 

Agency: Rise: SSA; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 67; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 97; 
Fall/rise: Number: +30; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +45%. 

Agency: Rise: NASA (pending); 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 135; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 337; 
Fall/rise: Number: +202; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +150%. 

Agency: Rise: Agency: ED (pending); 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 480; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 689; 
Fall/rise: Number: +209; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +44%. 

Agency: Rise: State; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 3,200; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 3,375; 
Fall/rise: Number: +175; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: +5%. 

Agency: Rise: DOD (baseline differs)[H]; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: Baseline[B]: 18,216; 
Number of overdue (or pending)[A] requests: As of September 14, 
2007[C]: 23,255;
Fall/rise: Number: greater than 5,039; 
Fall/rise: Percentage: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

[A] Agencies' statistics on pending cases are in gray. 

[B] Agencies provided baseline statistics for various different 
preimplementation dates; see table 9. 

[C] Except as noted. 

[D] EPA provided number as of September 17, 2007. 

[E] DOI was unable to provide a pre-implementation baseline for overdue 
requests, but it was able to provide a statistic for February 2007, 
which is about the midpoint of the period. 

[F] DOE provided number as of September 1, 2007. 

[G] No percentage is provided because the two numbers are too small for 
a percentage comparison to be meaningful. 

[H] DOD provided pending numbers as a baseline. These statistics 
indicate that it has experienced a rise in overdue requests; the exact 
number is unknown because the number of overdue requests included in 
the baseline is unknown. However, this number must be 18,216 or less, 
so the rise must be 5,039 or more. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 8, since implementing their FOIA improvement plans, 
eight agencies showed significant decreases in their backlogs of 
overdue cases (AID, DHS, EPA, Interior, Labor, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the Treasury, and VA), and one (Energy) showed decreases in 
pending requests (Energy does not distinguish overdue requests from 
pending requests in its reduction efforts). 

Because of the large numbers of pending and overdue requests that it 
accounts for governmentwide, DHS's reduction is particularly notable. 
According to its statistics, DHS succeeded in reducing backlog by 29 
percent since June 2006, reducing its overdue requests by almost 
30,000. DHS officials, including the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, 
attributed the department's success to activities performed as part of 
its improvement plan for both 2006 and 2007. For 2006, DHS's 
improvement plan goals related to backlog reduction included hiring 
additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at CIS, 
meeting with an important requester group (the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association) to discuss file processing and customer service 
enhancements, and establishing a monitoring program under which all DHS 
components submitted weekly and monthly data to DHS's Chief FOIA 
Officer. Officials also cited improvements to the department's Web site 
to assist requesters in properly drafting and directing their requests; 
increased outreach and assistance by the central FOIA office to 
components; formalized employee training programs; and the launch of an 
Internet-based FOIA correspondence tracking and case management system 
for FOIA offices at DHS headquarters, which is to streamline the 
tracking of requests. In addition, DHS's Deputy Chief FOIA Officer told 
us that she attributes the department's progress to an increased focus 
on customer service and communication with requesters, as well as 
efforts to streamline FOIA processing using available technologies. 

Also notable is VA's performance: it reported achieving a backlog 
reduction of over 80 percent from August 2006 to September 2007--a 
reduction of 9,550 requests. This is also significant to the overall 
backlog picture, as VA accounts for significant portions of 
governmentwide requests received and pending (table 7 provides numbers 
for fiscal year 2006). VA attributed its backlog reduction to the 
improvements resulting from meeting the milestones that it had set in 
its improvement plan and the increased management emphasis on backlog 
reduction. VA's 2006 improvement goals were to implement quarterly 
backlog snapshot reporting for all components; analyze these snapshots 
to identify offices with significant backlogs; identify the 
department's 10 oldest FOIA requests and estimated completion dates; 
and conduct FOIA site visits. In its annual report, VA reported meeting 
these goals, as well as a number of goals for 2007, including analysis 
of backlog and solutions. 

Other agencies did not reduce their backlog of overdue or pending 
cases: two agencies with minor backlog saw no material change, but five 
agencies saw significant increases: 

* Commerce saw a minor increase in its backlog of 7 overdue requests, 
for a total of 188 (Commerce generally receives about 2,000 FOIA 
requests a year). According to Commerce's Departmental FOIA Officer, 
the department received a large number of voluminous requests in the 
period before September 14, which she said was because of the election 
year, and many of these requests were requests for congressional 
correspondence and correspondence logs. According to this official, 
because such logs and correspondence involve other agencies, such 
requests require external consultation, which can be time-consuming. 
She also stated that the department's backlog of overdue requests 
varies from day to day, and that by September 30, 2007, it had fallen 
to 159. For agencies such as Commerce, whose processing rates have 
fluctuated closely around 100 percent (see fig. 7), such variations are 
not surprising. 

* NSF's pending requests rose from 5 to 7 from its fiscal year 2006 
report to September 14, 2007; NSF processes around 250 to 350 requests 
per year. As these numbers show, NSF does not face major backlog 
issues. Further, when dealing with small numbers that can vary daily, a 
difference of 2 between snapshot dates does not provide a meaningful 
indication of a trend. 

SSA, State, and Defense saw rises in overdue requests, and NASA and 
Education saw rises in pending requests: 

* Although SSA stated in its fiscal year 2006 annual report that it had 
reduced its backlog by 5 percent, it experienced a rise in its backlog 
of overdue requests by September 2007. SSA officials, including the 
Principal Public FOIA Liaison, attribute this rise to difficulties in 
migration to a new electronic FOIA tracking system, recent loss of 
experienced staff, and an increase in complex requests in 2007. 
According to these officials, this increase in requests occurred 
because of events that led to heightened public interest, such as SSA 
field office closures. Although SSA is expecting to lose more senior 
staff in 2007, officials hope to reduce backlog by streamlining 
operations and careful management. For example, according to agency 
FOIA officials, SSA is tasking junior-level personnel, including 
administrative and office automation staff, with the responsibility of 
responding to requests from frequent requesters seeking routine 
statistical data, thus allowing senior analysts to work on more complex 
requests.[Footnote 52] 

* According to FOIA officials at State's Office of Information Programs 
and Services, the department's backlog of overdue requests increased 
because of conflicting demands on the staff that coordinate and process 
FOIA requests. For example, staff resources were redirected in response 
to a department priority placed on passport processing. State also 
reported that it experienced an increase in the number of congressional 
requests for documents, the expedited processing of which often 
competes for the same staff. According to the department, it plans to 
address its backlog challenges by efforts to better track and control 
the FOIA workload. 

* Defense attributes most of the rise in its backlog of overdue 
requests to an unforeseen influx of requests received by the Defense 
Security Service (DSS). According to the chief of Defense's Freedom of 
Information Policy Office, DSS accounts for over 10,000 of Defense's 
23,255 backlogged requests. This official told us that these requests 
are primarily Privacy Act requests for background investigation files 
from individuals who were investigated by DSS for security clearances 
over the past 15 years. According to this official, the DSS backlog 
increased because, among other things, personnel security investigation 
resources were transferred from DSS to OPM when OPM assumed the 
personnel security investigation mission in 2005; the increased 
security awareness within the country since the events of September 11, 
2001, caused more employers of former Defense personnel to ask for 
security clearance information; and the war in Iraq caused a 
significant increase in the use of cleared contractors for critical 
positions. The chief of Defense's Freedom of Information Policy Office 
stated that the department plans to modify its FOIA improvement plan to 
address this new backlog. 

* NASA saw an increase of more than 100 percent in pending requests 
from February 2006 to September 14, 2007. According to NASA's Chief 
FOIA Public Liaison Officer, during this past fiscal year, it 
experienced an unexpectedly large increase in FOIA workload because of 
high-visibility incidents that led the public and media to increase 
their FOIA requests, such as an incident involving an astronaut accused 
of attempted murder, foam-related issues with the shuttle tanks, and 
contracts with NASA's new exploration vehicle. Most of these requests 
involve information that is being considered under civil and criminal 
proceedings, operational safety reviews, and internal controls; as a 
result, according to this official, they required extensive legal 
reviews concerning the initial release determinations. 

* Education experienced a 44 percent increase in pending requests from 
June 2006 to September 14, 2007. Education's improvement plan goals 
included closing its 10 oldest requests by January 2007, as well as 10 
percent of 480 requests that it identified as pending as of June 2006. 
In its annual report, the department stated that it exceeded its 10 
percent goal, but that it did not close its 10 oldest requests because 
resources had been reallocated to address other unplanned FOIA 
priorities and workload. In addition, the Director of Regulatory 
Information Management Services in the department's Office of 
Management told us that the department has experienced an increase in 
pending/backlog FOIA requests because of the growing number of FOIA 
requests seeking responsive documents of a cross-cutting nature, which 
require substantial time and attention from senior personnel. 

Variations in Statistics Tracked and Backlog Reduction Goals Prevent a 
Clear Assessment of Governmentwide Progress: 

Although the statistics provided by the 16 agencies indicate that many 
agencies have made reductions, the governmentwide picture is not clear 
because the types of statistics varied widely, representing both 
overdue and pending cases and varying time frames. Further, 3 of the 21 
agencies were unable to provide statistics supporting their backlog 
reduction efforts, and 1 provided statistics by component, which could 
not be aggregated to provide an agencywide result. 

Table 9 shows the variations in the dates of the baseline statistics 
for the agencies. For agencies that provided the number of their 
overdue cases, the dates generally depended on when the agencies first 
began to collect such statistics. Some agencies had collected 
preimplementation backlog numbers as a baseline for their improvement 
plans, and others planned to determine backlog of overdue cases as part 
of the implementation of their plans. For agencies that provided 
pending statistics, the dates generally depended on the systems and 
processes used to develop the statistics. 

Table 9: Dates of Baseline Statistics for 16 Agencies: 

Agency: AID; 
Date of statistics provided: April 18, 2006. 

Agency: DHS; 
Date of statistics provided: June 30, 2006. 

Agency: DOC; 
Date of statistics provided: May 5, 2006. 

Agency: DOD (pending)[A]; 
Date of statistics provided: September 2006. 

Agency: DOE (pending); 
Date of statistics provided: April 2006. 

Agency: DOI; 
Date of statistics provided: February 2007[B]. 

Agency: DOL; 
Date of statistics provided: June 2006. 

Agency: ED (pending); 
Date of statistics provided: June 2, 2006. 

Agency: EPA; 
Date of statistics provided: June 14, 2006. 

Agency: NASA (pending); 
Date of statistics provided: February 2006. 

Agency: NRC; 
Date of statistics provided: June 14, 2006. 

Agency: NSF (pending); 
Date of statistics provided: September 2006. 

Agency: SSA; 
Date of statistics provided: June 15, 2006. 

Agency: State; 
Date of statistics provided: July 1, 2006. 

Agency: Treas; 
Date of statistics provided: June 30, 2006. 

Agency: VA; 
Date of statistics provided: August 24, 2006. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

[A] DOD provided pending numbers for its baseline only; it provided 
numbers of overdue requests for the September 2007 comparison. 

[B] DOI was unable to provide a preimplementation baseline for overdue 
requests, but it was able to provide a midpoint statistic. 

[End of table] 

Some agencies provided statistics on backlog of overdue requests, some 
provided numbers of pending requests, and some provided a combination. 
For the four agencies providing only pending statistics, the actual 
backlogs of overdue requests would probably be lower, since overdue 
cases are a subset of pending cases.[Footnote 53] Those providing 
pending statistics did so either because their systems were not set up 
to track overdue requests, because they chose not to distinguish them, 
or both. For example, according to NASA, its current in-house FOIA 
database is designed to report statistics only on open requests and 
does not distinguish those that are over the statutory limit (20 or, in 
some cases, 30 days). Therefore, NASA provided us numbers pertaining to 
all open requests. On the other hand, Education and Energy chose not to 
distinguish between pending cases and those over the statutory limit. 
Energy explained this decision on the grounds that it ensured that all 
cases were given the same priority and that new cases would receive 
just as efficient a response as old ones. 

Two agencies (Justice and Defense) provided a mix of pending and 
overdue statistics: 

* Justice reported by components, which provided a mix of pending and 
overdue statistics, as well as baselines associated with dates ranging 
from September 2005 to October 2006. Because of this mix, the 
statistics could not be aggregated and directly compared to give a 
meaningful departmentwide result. However, of 28 components, 13 
reported decreases in overdue or pending cases, 6 reported increases, 7 
reported no overdue requests, 1 was a new component that had no 
preimplementation history, and 1 component did not provide statistics 
for the time frames requested. 

* According to Defense, it had not previously tracked backlog in the 
sense of the Executive Order (that is, overdue requests), and it 
planned to use the September 2007 statistics collected for us as a 
baseline for future tracking. 

Similarly, the Department of the Interior could not provide us with a 
preimplementation baseline because it did not track its backlog of 
overdue requests at that time. Interior told us that it has now 
modified its tracking system to allow it to monitor overdue cases in 
real time. 

Table 10 shows the four agencies for which information was not provided 
or was not sufficient for a clear conclusion. (The remaining agency, 
SBA, did not report a backlog for either June 2006 or September 2007.) 

Table 10: Four Agencies with Missing or Inconclusive Statistics: 

Agency: DOJ; 
Comment: Statistics reported by components could not be aggregated. 

Agency: DOT; 
Comment: Did not provide statistics. 

Agency: HHS; 
Comment: Did not provide statistics. 

Agency: OPM; 
Comment: Did not provide a baseline. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Note: Abbreviations are as in table 2. 

[End of table] 

Three agencies did not provide any statistics. Transportation and HHS, 
both of which have decentralized FOIA programs, told us that collecting 
and providing such statistics was not feasible. Transportation stated 
that it would have been extremely burdensome to do so because its 
operating administrations are set up to capture open requests and not 
overdue requests. Similarly, HHS officials told us that the 
decentralized nature of the department's FOIA operations and the manual 
processes that are used to compile statistics made it impractical to 
compile the requested data. 

One agency, OPM, did not provide a baseline statistic. It reported 152 
overdue requests as of September 2007, but without a baseline, no 
conclusion on its progress is possible. According to OPM, because it 
did not establish a numerical goal for backlog reduction (its goal was 
to eliminate its backlog of overdue requests), it did not record the 
number of overdue requests as a baseline before implementing its 
improvement plan. 

A major reason for this variation in statistics is that agencies did 
not necessarily have systems or processes to record backlog in the 
sense of the Executive Order (requests for records that have not been 
responded to within the statutory time limit); instead, their systems 
or processes were based on recording statistics required for the annual 
reports, which include a count of open requests pending at the end of 
the reporting period but do not include backlog of overdue requests. 
This challenge is compounded for agencies with highly decentralized 
programs or manual processes, for which assembling the statistics, even 
if they were available, is a significant task. 

In addition, the goals that agencies set regarding backlog reduction 
varied widely. In our March 2007 report, we noted that almost all plans 
contained measurable goals and timetables for avoiding or reducing 
backlog.[Footnote 54] However, the goals concentrated on a wide variety 
of targets and metrics. For example, some goals and milestones were 
focused on activities that could be expected to reduce backlog by 
contributing to efficiency, such as conducting reviews, setting up 
monitoring mechanisms, hiring staff, conducting training, and making 
other process improvements.[Footnote 55] Others were numerical goals 
aimed at particular metrics, such as reducing processing time; 
completing a certain percentage of requests within 20 days; reducing 
the number of some subset of requests (such as the 10 oldest cases, 
those over a year old, cases opened before a particular date, or cases 
at particular components); or reducing the number of pending or overdue 
requests by a certain percentage, to a certain number, or to a certain 
proportion of requests received per year. The goals also covered a 
variety of time frames, so that not all agencies set numerical goals 
for the first reporting period (which ended about 7 months after they 
began implementing their improvement plans), but instead set only 
process goals. 

The reason for this variety of goals and milestones is that Justice's 
guidance on implementing the Executive Order gave agencies broad 
flexibility in designing their plans. This guidance emphasized that 
identifying ways to eliminate or reduce backlog should be a major 
underpinning of the implementation plans of all agencies that had 
backlogs. However, the guidance allowed agencies to develop goals that 
they considered most appropriate in light of their current FOIA 
operations; it did not prescribe any particular metric for all agencies 
to use. According to the Director of Justice's Office of Information 
and Privacy, the guidance was intended to provide flexibility to 
agencies in developing appropriate measurements that best fit their 
individual circumstances. As a result, the goals and milestones set by 
agencies included a wide variety of different aims and measures. 

In recent guidance issued to implement the Attorney General's 
recommendations for improving FOIA implementation,[Footnote 56] 
Justice directed agencies to develop backlog reduction goals for fiscal 
years 2008 to 2010.[Footnote 57] The guidance directs agencies to 
estimate the number of requests they expect to receive during each 
fiscal year and to set goals both for the number of requests they 
intend to process and for the number of requests pending beyond the 
statutory limit (backlog) at the end of each fiscal year.[Footnote 58] 
According to the Director of Justice's Office of Information and 
Privacy, this guidance was aimed at ensuring the continuation of the 
improvement process begun by the Executive Order. This guidance 
continues the flexible approach set in earlier guidance, in that it 
gives agencies freedom to set goals that they consider appropriate and 
realistic to their own circumstances. 

The Director of the Office of Information and Privacy also stated that 
by directing agencies to establish these goals, the office intended to 
establish a core definition for what is being tracked and to encourage 
agencies to begin focusing on this metric. However, the guidance does 
not direct agencies to modify their existing improvement plans or to 
otherwise develop strategies, plans, or milestones to achieve these new 
goals, which are in addition to the specific goals set in their 
improvement plans. The guidance also does not direct agencies to track 
and report the actual number of requests pending beyond the statutory 
limit. Without such planning and tracking, agencies may face challenges 
in achieving the reductions envisioned. Neither the public nor the 
agencies could effectively monitor progress unless agencies put in 
place processes and systems that allow them to track and report their 
backlogs of overdue requests. 

Conclusions: 

The annual FOIA reports continue to provide valuable information about 
the public's use of this important tool to obtain information about the 
operations and decisions of the federal government. However, the value 
of this information depends on its accuracy. In some cases, agencies 
were not able to provide assurance that their information was accurate 
and complete. It is important for agencies to ensure that they have 
appropriate procedures and internal controls, so that agencies and the 
public have reasonable assurance that FOIA data are reliable. 

Some of the challenges that agencies face in processing FOIA requests 
include the need to review and redact sometimes large volumes of 
responsive records, to consult with other agencies or confer with 
multiple organizations, and to provide predisclosure notifications to 
information submitters. These practical challenges provide some insight 
into the reasons why backlogs can develop and grow, as well as an 
appreciation of the need for sustained attention to ensure that 
backlogs do not become unmanageable. For example, in one agency 
component, the pressure to avoid litigation, while ensuring that some 
newer requests were responded to promptly, led to a situation in which 
very old cases may remain open indefinitely. Establishing goals and 
time frames to close such cases could help avoid this result. The 
challenge to agency management is to determine how to apply finite 
resources to respond to the multiple and sometimes competing demands 
placed on their FOIA programs. 

The progress that many agencies have made in reducing backlog suggests 
that the development and implementation of the FOIA improvement plans 
have had a positive effect. However, in the absence of consistent 
statistics on overdue cases, it is not possible to make a full 
assessment of governmentwide progress in this area. Justice's latest 
guidance on setting backlog reduction goals is a step toward developing 
such statistics, although it does not explicitly ask agencies to track 
and report them. However, on the principle that "what gets measured 
gets managed," the chances of agency success in achieving reductions 
could be increased if they monitor and report statistics on their 
backlog of overdue requests, as well as develop plans for achieving 
their goals. Such reporting would further the aim of the statute and 
the Executive Order to inform citizens about the operations of their 
government and the FOIA program in particular. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that FOIA data in the annual reports are reliable, we 
are recommending that the Administrator of General Services ensure that 
appropriate internal controls are put in place to improve the accuracy 
and reliability of FOIA data, including processes, such as checks and 
reviews, to verify that required data are entered correctly. 

To help ensure that FOIA data are reliable, we are recommending that 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ensure that appropriate 
policies and procedures are put in place to improve the accuracy and 
reliability of FOIA data, including procedures to ensure that all FOIA 
offices use tracking systems consistently and that information is 
entered accurately and promptly. 

We previously made a recommendation to the Department of Agriculture 
regarding the reliability of FOIA data at the Farm Service Agency; we 
are making no further recommendations at this time because the 
department has improvement efforts ongoing that, if implemented 
effectively, should help ensure that required data are entered 
correctly. 

We are also recommending that the Attorney General take the following 
actions: 

* To help ensure that its oldest requests receive appropriate 
attention, direct the Criminal Division to establish goals and time 
frames for closing its oldest requests, including those over 6 years 
old. 

* To help agencies achieve the backlog reduction goals planned for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and to ensure that comparable 
statistics on backlog are available governmentwide, direct the Office 
of Information and Privacy to provide additional guidance to agencies 
on (1) developing plans or modifying existing plans to achieve these 
goals and (2) tracking and reporting backlog. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the 24 agencies included 
in our analysis for review and comment. All generally agreed with our 
assessment and recommendations or had no comment.[Footnote 59] Seven 
agencies provided written comments: AID, Energy, EPA, GSA, Homeland 
Security, Justice, and OPM (printed in apps. III through IX). The 
Department of Veterans Affairs provided comments by e-mail. In 
addition, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, the Interior, Justice, 
and State provided technical comments by e-mail or letter, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. 

In written comments from the Department of Justice, the Director of 
Justice's Office of Information and Privacy provided additional 
information on its planned actions related to our recommendations (see 
app. VIII), and in later contacts, the department confirmed that it 
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. The Director 
described actions that the department has taken to help agencies 
achieve the backlog reduction goals planned for fiscal years 2008, 
2009, and 2010. The Director also stated that Justice intends to issue 
further guidance to agencies, which will encourage agencies both to 
ensure appropriate planning to meet their backlog reduction goals and 
to reduce the age of their oldest requests, as well as provide 
additional requirements for reporting on backlogged requests. 

In addition, the Director provided information on actions that the 
Criminal Division has taken to ensure that the oldest requests receive 
appropriate attention. She stated that her office has been advised by 
the FOIA Office of the Criminal Division that it has established goals 
and time frames for closing its oldest requests and that the likelihood 
of litigation is no longer a consideration for prioritizing requests 
older than 6 years (see app. VIII). 

The Administrator of General Services concurred with our findings and 
recommendations and stated that the administration has developed and 
implemented an automated tracking system, providing it with internal 
control of the data. In addition, the Administrator stated that GSA had 
increased the FOIA staff, resulting in more checks and reviews to 
verify that data are entered correctly (see app. VI). 

Three agencies provided written comments describing additional actions 
taken in regard to overdue requests: 

* The Director of the Department of Homeland Security's GAO/OIG Liaison 
Office concurred with our findings and recommendations and described 
actions taken by the department to continue to decrease the number of 
overdue requests, actions taken by CIS to expedite FOIA processing, and 
the priority given to departmentwide guidance (see app. VII). 

* The Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer of the 
Environmental Protection Agency described actions that the department 
has taken to ensure that it continues to decrease the number of its 
overdue requests (see app. V). 

* The Director of the Office of Personnel Management stated that the 
office did not dispute our statement that it had not established a 
backlog baseline, and added that since the audit was completed it has 
established backlog reduction goals and determined a baseline for 
overdue requests (see app. IX). 

Two agencies provided written comments agreeing with the information 
presented on their FOIA programs: 

* For the Department of Energy, the Director of the Office of 
Management/Chief Freedom of Information Officer provided comments (see 
app. IV). 

* For the Agency for International Development, the Assistant 
Administrator of the Bureau for Management provided comments (see app. 
III). 

Finally, the GAO Liaison of the Department of Veterans Affairs provided 
e-mail comments agreeing with the information presented on the 
department's FOIA program. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report 
until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send 
copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of departments and 
agencies we reviewed. Copies will be made available to others on 
request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our 
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-6240 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix X. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) determine the status of agencies' processing 
of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and any trends that can 
be seen, (2) describe factors that contribute to FOIA requests 
remaining open beyond the statutory limits, and (3) determine to what 
extent agencies have made progress in addressing their backlogs of 
overdue FOIA requests since implementing their improvement plans. 

To determine the status of agencies' processing of FOIA requests and 
any trends, we analyzed annual report data for fiscal years 2002 
through 2006. Our intended scope was the 24 agencies covered by the 
Chief Financial Officers Act, plus the Central Intelligence Agency 
(herein we refer to this scope as governmentwide). To gauge agencies' 
progress in processing requests, we analyzed the workload data (from 
fiscal year 2002 through 2006) 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 provide assurance that the data reported in the annual reports were 
reliable, we interviewed officials from selected agencies and assessed 
the internal controls that agencies had in place for ensuring that 
their data were complete and accurate. Our strategy for assessing data 
reliability was to assess agencies on a 3-year rotational basis. In 
both fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, we selected the Social 
Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
assessment because they processed a majority of the requests 
governmentwide, as well as eight additional agencies. To ensure that we 
selected agencies of varying size, we ordered the remaining agencies 
according to the number of requests they received (from smallest to 
largest) and divided the resulting list into sets of three; we assessed 
the first member of each set last year and the second of each set this 
year. 

This year, in addition to the Social Security Administration and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the following agencies were selected 
for assessment: the Departments of Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 
Development, Justice, and Transportation, as well as the Agency for 
International Development, the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the General Services 
Administration. We also chose to revisit the Department of Agriculture, 
which we assessed last year, because we had determined that we could 
not be assured that data from a component, the Farm Service Agency, 
were accurate and complete. Thus, we planned to assess a total of 11 
agencies in fiscal year 2006. We performed assessments at 10 of these 
agencies; we did not assess the Central Intelligence Agency because it 
did not provide information in response to our requests. 

As a result of these assessment efforts, we omitted 4 of the 25 
agencies from our analysis: the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
General Services Administration, and the Departments of Agriculture and 
Housing and Urban Development. We eliminated the Central Intelligence 
Agency, because without its participation, we were unable to determine 
whether it had internal controls ensuring that its data were accurate 
and complete. We eliminated the General Services Administration and the 
Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development because 
they did not provide evidence of internal controls that would provide 
reasonable assurance that FOIA data were recorded completely and 
accurately, or they acknowledged material limitations of the data. As a 
result, our statistical analysis for this report was based on data from 
a total of 21 agencies' annual reports. Table 11 shows the 25 agencies 
and their reliability assessment status. 

Table 11: Data Reliability Assessment Status for Agencies Reviewed: 

Agency: Agency for International Development; 
Abbreviation: AID; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency; 
Abbreviation: CIA; 
Data reliability assessment: Did not participate; reliability not 
assured; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Abbreviation: USDA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliability not assured; 
Assessment date: 2006, 2007. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Abbreviation: DOC; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of Defense; 
Abbreviation: DOD; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Department of Education; 
Abbreviation: ED; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Abbreviation: DOE; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Abbreviation: HHS; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of Homeland Security; 
Abbreviation: DHS; 
Data reliability assessment: 
Reliable; Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Abbreviation: HUD; 
Data reliability assessment: 
Reliability not assured; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Abbreviation: DOI; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Abbreviation: DOJ; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
Abbreviation: DOL; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Abbreviation: State; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of the Treasury; 
Abbreviation: Treas; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Abbreviation: DOT; 
Data reliability assessment: 
Reliable; Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Abbreviation: VA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Abbreviation: EPA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Abbreviation: GSA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliability not assured; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Abbreviation: NASA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Abbreviation: NSF; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Abbreviation: NRC; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Abbreviation: OPM; 
Data reliability assessment: Not assessed; 
Assessment date: [Empty]. 

Agency: Small Business Administration; 
Abbreviation: SBA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2006. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Abbreviation: SSA; 
Data reliability assessment: Reliable; 
Assessment date: 2007. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

To describe factors that contribute to FOIA requests remaining open 
beyond the statutory limits, we analyzed case files for the 10 oldest 
pending requests at selected agencies and discussed these cases and the 
reasons they remained open with agency officials. We also interviewed 
agency officials regarding the factors they considered most relevant 
for their agencies. 

To determine to what extent agencies made progress in addressing 
backlogged FOIA requests since implementing their improvement plans, we 
analyzed the improvement plan progress reports included in the fiscal 
year 2006 annual reports of the 21 major agencies whose internal 
controls we evaluated as sufficient in order to determine whether the 
agencies met their 2006 backlog reduction milestones. In order to 
determine whether agencies made a reduction or an increase in 
backlogged cases, we analyzed statistics provided by the agencies on 
their backlogs at different points in time. We discussed the 
information in the progress reports and backlog statistics with agency 
officials to determine their views on the reasons for backlog increases 
or decreases, as well as their progress on their improvement plans. 

In addition, we reviewed the requirements for reporting progress 
contained in the Executive Order, implementation guidance from the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice, other 
FOIA guidance issued by Justice, and our past work in this area. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 to March 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions: 

The act prescribes nine specific categories of information that are 
exempt from disclosure. 

Table 12: 

Exemption number: (1); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: (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. 

Exemption number: (2); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Related solely to the internal 
personnel rules and practices of an agency. 

Exemption number: (3); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: 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. 

Exemption number: (4); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged or 
confidential. 

Exemption number: (5); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Interagency 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. 

Exemption number: (6); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Personnel and medical files and 
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

Exemption number: (7)(A); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be 
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. 

Exemption number: (7)(B); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information would deprive a person of a 
right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication. 

Exemption number: (7)(C); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be 
expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

Exemption number: (7)(D); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be 
expected to 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. 

Exemption number: (7)(E); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information 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. 

Exemption number: (7)(F); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Records or information compiled for 
law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of 
such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be 
expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual. 

Exemption number: (8); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Contained in or related to 
examination, operating, or condition of reports prepared by, on behalf 
of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation of 
supervision of financial institutions. 

Exemption number: (9); 
Matters that are exempt from FOIA: Geological and geophysical 
information and data, including maps, concerning wells. 

Source: 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 552(b)(1) through (b)(9). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III Comments from the Agency for International Development: 

USAID: 
From The American People: 
U.S. Agency for International Development: 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: 
Washington, DC 20523: 
[hyperlink, http://www.usaid.gov] 

February 14, 2008: 

Linda Koontz: 
Director: 
Information Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

I am. pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's (USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled 
Freedom of Information Act: Agencies Are Making Progress in Reducing 
Backlog, but Additional Guidance is Needed (GAO-08-344-) (March 2008).
We commend the GAO for its continuous and extensive reviews of the FOIA 
sector. While each agency has differing processes, problems, and 
requesters; your progress reports do provide agencies with broad 
baselines for comparative performance reviews. We have reviewed the 
data pertaining to our Agency and have found it to be accurate. USAID 
will continue to seek ways of improving its performance in the FOIA 
sector. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Sean Mulvaney: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

February 11, 2008: 

Linda Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, Freedom of 
Information Act Agencies are Making Progress in Reducing Backlog, but 
Additional Guidance is Needed (GAO-08-344). The Department agrees with 
the information portrayed for the Freedom of Information Act program at 
the Department of Energy. Therefore, we have no comments. 

We applaud your efforts to ensure that agencies are using best 
practices in addressing backlog issues, processing requests and 
implementing our respective FOIA improvement plans set forth in 
accordance with Executive Order 13,392. If you have any questions, 
please contact Mr. Kevin T. Hagerty, Director, Office of Information 
Resources at 02) 586-8037. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Ingrid Kolb: 
Director
Office of Management/Chief Freedom of Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Office of Environmental Information: 
Washington, D.C. 20460: 

February 12, 2008: 

Ms. Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Government Accountability 
Office's draft report, "Freedom of Information Act, Agencies are Making 
Progress in Reducing Backlog, but Additional Guidance Is Needed," GAO-
08-344. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to be 
committed to the letter and spirit of Executive Order 13392. EPA takes 
pride in the quality of the customer service it provides to Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) requesters and will continue to review its 
processes to identity opportunities to strengthen its FOIA program. 

The Agency remains diligent in assuring that its overall FOIA backlog 
continues to decrease. This ongoing commitment to backlog reduction and 
better program management is demonstrated by the Agency's success in 
reducing the total number of overdue requests Agency-wide to 783 as of 
October 1, 2007. The Agency also closed its oldest initial FOIA which 
was received in 1995. As of October 1, 2007, the Agency's oldest 
request is dated June 13, 2003. EPA is very proud of these 
accomplishments and will continue to implement measures to build on 
these successes. 

If you have any questions about EPA's FOIA Program, please feel free to 
contact Larry F. Gottesman, EPA National FOIA Officer, at (202) 566-
2162. 

Sincerely, 

Singed by: 

Molly A. O'Neil: 
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

GSA: 
GSA Administrator: 

February 11, 2008: 

The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General Of the United States: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Deal Mr. Walker: 

The General Services Administration (GSA) is pleased to provide you 
with our response to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft 
report entitled "Agencies Are Making Progress in Reducing Backlog, but 
Additional Guidance Is Needed" (GAO-08-344). 

We reviewed the report and concur with the findings and 
recommendations. In our response to Executive Order 13392, Improving 
Agency Disclosure of Information, GSA developed and implemented an 
automated tracking system to capture all agency-wide Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) information. The implementation of this system 
on October 1, 2006, is allowing us to monitor and review the data 
reported. It is also providing us with outstanding internal control of 
the data. In addition, GSA increased the FOIA staff, which resulted in 
more checks and reviews to verify data is entered correctly. We are 
confident that this will satisfy GAO's concerns. 

Staff inquiries may be directed to Mr. Kevin Messner, Associate 
Administrator, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, 
at (202) 501-0563. 

Cordially: 

Signed by: 

Lurita Doan: 
Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Homeland Security: 

February 13, 2008: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, Freedom of 
Information Act, Agencies Are Making Progress in Reducing Backlog but 
Additional Guidance Is Needed (GAO-08-344). The Department of Homeland 
Security concurs with GAO's findings and recommendations. 

On December 14, 2005, the President issued an Executive Order setting 
forth a policy of citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA 
administration. DHS immediately appointed a Chief FOIA Officer and 
instituted the other requirements, including, establishing component 
customer service centers and a DHS customer-service liaison, evaluating 
program efficiency, drafting an operational improvement plan and a 
subsequent revised improvement plan, retooling the DHS public-facing 
website, and updating the electronic reading room. By mid-2007, DHS 
reduced the overall FOIA backlog by almost 30%. As GAO points out in 
this draft report, "Notably... DHS was able to decrease its backlog of 
overdue requests by 29,972..." 

Our efforts to decrease the backlog continue. Starting in early 2008, 
the Chief FOIA Officer and the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer met with 
component leadership to follow-up on any pressing FOIA concerns. 
Additionally, the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer visited and conducted file 
reviews of each DHS FOIA component. Since submitting the DHS backlog 
reduction goals for FY08, FY09 and FY10 to the Department of Justice in 
October 2007, the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer sends updated monthly goals 
for each component to assure they are on track for their annual goals. 

Certain components present unique challenges. As you recognize in your 
report, about 89 percent of DHS pending FOIA cases are from Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS), which receives over 100,000 incoming 
requests annually. Most of CIS's FOIA requests come from individuals 
and their representatives seeking information contained within the 
Alien Files (A-files); this information may be used in applying for 
immigration benefits or in immigration proceedings, as well as for 
genealogy studies. CIS has established a third track for processing 
requests of those with scheduled court dates and they are also 
assessing digitization of the files to expedite processing. 

Department-wide guidance is also a priority. Eight of the ten oldest 
pending DHS requests were directed to the Coast Guard for documents on 
vessel incidents. In these cases, the Coast Guard responded to 
requesters that, as the incident was still under investigation, 
material might be protected from release as part of an ongoing law 
enforcement proceeding, and the requesters were offered the choice of 
receiving any material then available or authorizing an extension until 
the investigation was complete. New Departmental guidance will 
alleviate these stagnant backlogged requests. 

As the draft report indicates, DHS was one of the eight agencies 
showing significant decreases in their backlogs, since implementing 
their FOIA improvement plans. As stated by GAO: 

[B]ecause of the large numbers of pending and overdue requests that it 
accounts for government-wide, DHS's reduction is particularly notable. 
According to its statistics, DHS succeeded in reducing backlog by 29 
percent since June 2006, reducing its overdue requests by almost 
30,000. DHS officials, including the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer 
attributed the department's success to activities performed as part of 
its improvement plan for both 2006 and 2007. For 2006, DHS's 
improvement plan goals related to backlog reduction included hiring 
additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at CIS, 
meeting with an important requester group (the American Immigration 
Lawyers Association) to discuss file processing and customer service 
enhancements, and establishing a monitoring program under which all DHS 
components submitted weekly and monthly data to DHS's Chief FOIA 
Officer. Officials also cited improvements to the department's Web site 
to assist requesters in properly drafting and directing their requests, 
increased outreach and assistance by the central FOIA office to 
components; formalized employee training programs; and launch of an 
Internet-based FOIA correspondence tracking/case management system for 
DHS headquarters FOIA offices to streamline the tracking of requests. 
In addition, DHS's Deputy Chief FOIA Officer told us that she 
attributes the department's progress to an increased focus on customer 
service and communication with requesters, as well as efforts to 
streamline FOIA processing using available technologies. 

Lastly, we are proud that GAO assessed internal controls and determined 
that DHS was one of the fourteen agencies to provide reliable annual 
report data. 

DHS appreciates the professionalism demonstrated by the GAO auditors' 
throughout the course of this review. The DHS Privacy Office 
appreciates the effort expended and guidance provided in this report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director, Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of Information and Privacy: 
Washington, D. C. 20530: 
Telephone: (202) 514-3642: 

February 12, 2008: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director: 
Information Management: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Koontz: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled "Freedom of 
Information Act: Agencies Are Making Progress in Reducing Backlog, but 
Additional Guidance is Needed" (GAO-08-344). The Department of Justice 
is pleased that this report finds that agencies have made progress in 
addressing their backlogs of requests since implementing their agency 
FOIA Improvement Plans under Executive Order 13,392 and that that 
progress has had a "positive effect" on FOIA administration. In Fiscal 
Year 2006 alone, agencies devoted more than 5,500 employee work-years 
to the administration of the FOIA. 

We would like to address GAO's recommendations that the Department of 
Justice's Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) provide additional 
guidance to agencies both on "tracking and reporting overdue requests 
and planning to meet the new backlog goals." 

As noted in GAO's report, in September 2007, OIP posted guidance to 
agencies on establishing backlog reduction goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 
2009, and 2010. That guidance was issued as a result of one of the 
recommendations made by the Attorney General to the President in his 
June 2007 report on agency progress under Executive Order 13,392. In 
that June 2007 report, the Attorney General recommended that any agency 
that has a FOIA request or administrative appeal pending beyond the 
statutory time period (i.e., a backlog) at the end of Fiscal Year 2007, 
should establish backlog reduction goals for the next three fiscal 
years. These goals were required to be posted on each agency's FOIA Web 
site by November 1, 2007. 

In addition, in October 2007, OIP issued additional guidance to 
agencies on preparing their annual FOIA reports for Fiscal Year 2007 
and specifically directed agencies to, for the first time, report on 
their ten oldest pending FOIA requests and ten oldest pending 
consultations received from other agencies. 

As previously conveyed to GAO, OIP intends to issue still further 
guidance to agencies that builds on the foundation laid by the 
requirements to establish agency backlog reduction goals and to account 
for the agency's ten oldest pending requests. OIP's guidance will both 
encourage agencies to ensure appropriate planning to meet their backlog 
reduction goals and to reduce the age of their oldest requests, as well 
as provide additional requirements for reporting on backlogged 
requests. 

GAO also recommends that the Criminal Division FOIA Office establish 
goals and time frames for closing its oldest pending requests, 
including those pending over six years. We have been advised by the 
FOIA Office of the Criminal Division that it has established goals and 
time frames for closing its oldest requests. In fact, the Criminal 
Division advised that as of the end of January 2008, of the ten oldest 
cases originally reported to GAO, only two remain open. Further, the 
Criminal Division FOIA Office advises that the likelihood of litigation 
is no longer a consideration for prioritizing requests older than six 
years. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report, 
and we look forward to additional collaboration in our efforts to 
further improve FOIA processing government wide. If you have any 
questions regarding our comments, please contact Richard P. Theis, 
Department of Justice Audit Liaison, Audit Liaison Group on (202) 514-
0469. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Melanie Ann Pustay: 
Director, Policy and Litigation Office of Information and Privacy: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

The Director: 
United States Office Of Personnel Management:
Washington, DC 20415: 

February l3, 2008: 

The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), appreciates the opportunity 
to review the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report 
entitled Freedom of Information Act: Agencies are Making Progress in 
Reducing Backlog, but Additional Guidance is Needed (GAO-08-344). 

OPM does not dispute the reference on page 60 of the draft report 
noting the absence of a baseline statistic. However, since the 
completion of the audit, OPM rectified this issue by preparing and 
posting backlog reduction goals and a baseline on our agency's website. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments to your draft 
report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Linda M. Springer: 
Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda D. Koontz, (202) 512-6240 or [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this 
report were made by Ashley Brooks, Barbara Collier, Eric Costello, 
Marisol Cruz, Wilfred Holloway, David Plocher, Kelly Shaw, and 
Elizabeth Zhao. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 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] For example, see GAO, Freedom of Information Act: Processing Trends 
Show Importance of Improvement Plans, GAO-07-441 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 30, 2007); Information Management: Implementation of the Freedom 
of Information Act, GAO-05-648T (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2005); 
Information Management: Update on Freedom of Information Act 
Implementation Status, GAO-04-257 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2004); 
Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic 
Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 16, 2001). 

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

[5] This time may be extended by 10 days in "unusual circumstances," 
such as when requests involve a voluminous amount of records or require 
consultation with another agency. 

[6] All other sections of the annual reports cover the fiscal year 
only. The progress report section covers activities from the time the 
plans were developed in June 2006 through mid to late January 2007. 

[7] Data from the Central Intelligence Agency, General Services 
Administration, and the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and 
Urban Development were omitted from our analysis because we could not 
be assured that the data were accurate and complete. 

[8] We exclude SSA's statistics from our discussion of requests 
received, requests processed, and their disposition because SSA reports 
very large numbers of "simple requests handled by non-FOIA staff" 
(discussed later in this report): about 17 million in fiscal year 2005 
and over 18 million in fiscal year 2006. According to SSA, these 
numbers were previously underreported; their inclusion, owing to a 
change in the agency's counting methodology, resulted in a jump of 
about 16 million from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. Thus, 
including these statistics in the governmentwide data would obscure 
year-to-year comparisons. 

[9] Statements on pending requests are based on statistics that include 
the numbers reported by SSA, because they are not affected by the 
millions of simple requests mentioned in footnote , for which SSA does 
not keep statistics on pending requests. 

[10] 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2401(a). 

[11] The act has been amended several times. 

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

[13] This time may be extended by 10 days in "unusual circumstances," 
such as when requests involve a voluminous amount of records or require 
consultation with another agency. 

[14] 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. 

[15] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 552a. 

[16] 44 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3501-3521. 

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

[18] See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and 
Guidelines, 52 FR 10012 (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. 

[19] 5 U.S.C.ï¿½ 552(e)(1). 

[20] In reports that we issued before the Executive Order was issued, 
we used the term "backlog" to refer to these pending cases. 

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

[22] Department of Justice, Attorney General's Report to the President 
Pursuant to Executive Order 13392, Entitled "Improving Agency 
Disclosure of Information" (Washington, D.C., June 1, 2007). 

[23] Justice later updated the reporting templates provided in this 
guidance: Department of Justice, Modified Templates to Use When 
Submitting Backlog Reduction Goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 
2010, FOIA Post, October 16, 2007. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost18.htm]. 

[24] Department of Justice, Supplemental Guidance for Preparation and 
Submission of Section XII of Agency Fiscal Year 2007 Annual FOIA 
Reports, FOIA Post, October 16, 2007. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost17.htm]. 

[25] GAO-01-378. 

[26] GAO, Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 
Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, GAO-02-493 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2002); GAO-04-257; and GAO-05-648T. 

[27] GAO-07-441. 

[28] The Small Business Administration did not set a measurable goal 
because it reported no backlog of overdue cases. The National Science 
Foundation, which reported a minimal backlog of overdue requests and a 
median processing time of about 14 days, did not set a numerical goal 
but instead included activities to increase efficiency. 

[29] An internal control is an integral component of an organization's 
management that provides reasonable assurance that operations are 
effective and efficient, financial reporting is reliable, and the 
organization is complying with applicable laws and regulations. 
Internal controls include a wide range of diverse activities such as 
approvals, authorizations, verifications, and reconciliations. 

[30] GAO-07-441. 

[31] In August 2006, the agency FOIA officer told us that she 
questioned the completeness and accuracy of data supplied by the 
agencies' 2,350 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 staffs' understanding of FOIA 
requirements. She attributed this condition to the agency's 
decentralized organization and to lack of management attention, 
resources, and training. 

[32] 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. 

[33] 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 1,500 field offices. 

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

[35] 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. 

[36] See the discussion of Privacy Act requests in the background (p. 
). Justice guidance also advises agencies that the determining factor 
for including requests in their annual reports is whether the agency 
FOIA officer has decided to treat the request as a FOIA/Privacy Act 
request, rather than a general information request, and that only 
requests treated in this way should be included in agency annual 
reports. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost13.htm]. 

[37] Some of these agencies, like SSA, process a large number of 
Privacy Act requests. For example, the Department of the Treasury has 
stated that the majority of requests received by the Internal Revenue 
Service are first-party requests for tax records; these requests make 
up the bulk of Treasury FOIA statistics (about 80 percent). Also, a 
large proportion of FOIA requests directed to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs are for individual veterans' medical records. 

[38] GA0-07-441; GAO-01-378; and GAO-04-257. 

[39] 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. 

[40] When DHS was established, it incorporated 22 separate federal 
agencies and organizations, including FEMA (formerly an independent 
agency) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly part 
of the Department of Justice). The functions of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service were divided among three DHS components: Customs 
and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship 
and Immigration Services. 

[41] For more information on A-files, see GAO, Immigration Benefits: 
Additional Efforts Needed to Help Ensure Alien Files Are Located when 
Needed, GAO-07-85 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2006). 

[42] In addition, CIS is undertaking a transformation of its business 
processes and technology in ongoing modernization efforts. We have 
reviewed CIS's strategic transformation plans and reported on them in 
GAO, USCIS Transformation: Improvements to Performance, Human Capital, 
and Information Technology Management Needed as Modernization Proceeds, 
GAO-07-1013R (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007). 

[43] Some of this variation can be attributed to the different types of 
requests that the agencies receive. As pointed out earlier, some 
agencies receive large numbers of requests that require relatively 
little processing (for example, VA receives many requests for 
individual medical records). Other types of requests can require more 
processing (such as requests for which responsive records are 
voluminous or require extensive review and redaction). This topic is 
further discussed later in this report. 

[44] The rates shown are based on the reported number of requests 
processed in a given year, expressed as a percentage of reported 
requests received. Processing rates above 100 percent result in 
decreases in pending requests in that year. However, in some cases, 
agencies have reported corrections to reported pending cases from a 
previous year that are not captured in these rates. Such corrections 
have generally been minor, but could result in a rise in pending cases 
where these cases previously showed a decline. 

[45] Other statistics required were the time ranges of consultations 
pending with other agencies. 

[46] According to Justice guidance, when agencies cannot meet the 
statutory time limits due to limitations on their resources or for 
other reasons, they have adopted "the court-sanctioned practice of 
generally handling backlogged FOIA requests on a 'first-in, first-out' 
basis. The Electronic FOIA amendments expressly authorized agencies to 
promulgate regulations providing for 'multitrack processing' of their 
FOIA requests--which allows agencies to process requests on a first-in, 
first-out basis within each track, but also permits them to respond to 
relatively simple requests more quickly than requests involving complex 
and/or voluminous records." Department of Justice, Freedom of 
Information Act Guide (Washington, D.C., March 2007). 

[47] Executive Order 12600 (June 23, 1987) requires federal agencies to 
establish certain predisclosure notification procedures. The Executive 
Order requires, with certain limited exceptions, that notice be given 
to submitters of confidential commercial information when they mark it 
as such or whenever the agency "determines that it may be required to 
disclose" the requested data. 

[48] 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2401(a). 

[49] According to these officials, the case file had been destroyed 
after the case was closed. 

[50] Department of Justice, Attorney General's Report to the President 
on Executive Order 13392 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 16, 2006). 

[51] Baseline dates ranged from February 2006 to September 2006, with 
two exceptions. Justice reported by components, which provided pre-
implementation statistics ranging from October 2005 to October 2006. 
The Department of the Interior provided us with statistics for February 
2007 because it did not track its backlog of overdue requests in June 
2006. Details are provided in table 9. 

[52] SSA's goals included reducing its backlog by 5 percent by January 
15, 2007, and closing 90 percent of its 10 oldest cases per year. 
According to its 2006 annual report, it succeeded in reaching these 
goals by the milestone dates. 

[53] The pending figures provide an indication of the probable trend in 
overdue cases, but these trends are probable only. It is possible that 
an agency could experience an increase in pending numbers at the same 
time as a decrease in overdue requests (if it received a great many 
requests all at once at the end of an otherwise highly productive 
reporting period). It is also theoretically possible that an agency 
could experience a decrease in pending numbers while experiencing an 
increase in overdue requests; this could happen if an agency was unable 
to close numerous older requests during a reporting period in which it 
otherwise completed processing more requests than it received. 

[54] SBA did not set a measurable goal because it reported no backlog 
of overdue cases. NSF, which reported a minimal backlog of overdue 
requests and a median processing time of about 14 days, did not set a 
numerical goal, but instead included activities to increase efficiency. 

[55] In addition to setting backlog reduction goals, agencies also set 
goals related to the other improvement areas, such as consultation 
process, customer relations and communications, recruitment, use of 
information technology, improvement of FOIA Web pages, and others. We 
do not address these goals here, although some of them could 
potentially contribute to reducing backlogs of overdue requests by 
improving efficiency. 

[56] The Attorney General's recommendations were included in his June 
1, 2007, report to the President, Department of Justice, Attorney 
General's Report to the President Pursuant to Executive Order 13392, 
Entitled "Improving Agency Disclosure of Information" (Washington, 
D.C., June 1, 2007). In accordance with Sec. 4(a) of the Executive 
Order, the report includes recommendations for improving agency FOIA 
administration. 

[57] Justice later updated the reporting templates provided in this 
guidance: Department of Justice, Modified Templates to Use When 
Submitting Backlog Reduction Goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 
2010, FOIA Post, October 16, 2007. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost18.htm]. 

[58] Agencies were also asked to provide estimates and corresponding 
goals related to the numbers of administrative appeals for each fiscal 
year. 

[59] Thirteen agencies indicated by e-mail or letter that they had no 
comments on the report: the Departments of Agriculture, Education, 
Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, and the Treasury, as well as NASA, 
NRC, NSF, OMB, SSA, and SBA. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

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

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

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

*** End of document. ***