Freedom of Information Act
DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness Gao ID: GAO-09-260 March 20, 2009The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to generally provide the public with access to government information. In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, to improve agencies' FOIA processing. The order required each agency to review its operations and develop plans for improvement. Since its establishment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has accounted for a major and increasing portion of pending FOIA requests governmentwide. While it has reported achieving a notable reduction since 2006, DHS still possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests in the government. GAO was asked to determine (1) what key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department. To do this, GAO reviewed DHS's improvement plan; examined policies, procedures, and other documentation; and interviewed agency officials.
DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. DHS developed an improvement plan that focused on eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and deploying more advanced technology. Further, the DHS Privacy Office has initiated actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight of FOIA operations throughout the department's component agencies, including developing a departmentwide handbook, monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting relevant training for employees. As a result, DHS has reported reducing its backlog by about 24 percent since implementing its plan. However, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA processing across the department. Specifically, implementation of the following practices could facilitate the processing of information requests at a number of its major components: (1) Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help reduce the backlog of open requests. (2) Component-specific training. Component-specific training could enhance the efficiency of processing within component agencies. (3) Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online access to information concerning the status of their requests could contribute to better customer service and higher staff productivity. (4) Electronic dissemination of records. Releasing records in an electronic format could provide cost savings and increase efficiency. (5) Electronic redaction. By adopting electronic redaction more broadly, DHS may be able to reduce the staff time otherwise spent manually redacting records, while also improving the consistency of its responses to requests. By implementing these practices--which are already being used by certain DHS components and other agencies--across major DHS components, the department could further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer service, and respond to information requests in a more timely fashion
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-260, Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectivess
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-260
entitled 'Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance
Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-
Effectiveness' which was released on March 20, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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 Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2009:
Freedom of Information Act:
DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its Program, but Opportunities Exist to
Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness:
GAO-09-260:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-260, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to
generally provide the public with access to government information. In
December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, to improve
agencies‘ FOIA processing. The order required each agency to review its
operations and develop plans for improvement.
Since its establishment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
accounted for a major and increasing portion of pending FOIA requests
governmentwide. While it has reported achieving a notable reduction
since 2006, DHS still possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests
in the government. GAO was asked to determine (1) what key steps DHS
has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what opportunities exist
to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations
across the department. To do this, GAO reviewed DHS‘s improvement plan;
examined policies, procedures, and other documentation; and interviewed
agency officials.
What GAO Found:
DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. DHS developed an
improvement plan that focused on eliminating its backlog of overdue
requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and deploying
more advanced technology. Further, the DHS Privacy Office has initiated
actions to ensure policy compliance and provide oversight of FOIA
operations throughout the department‘s component agencies, including
developing a departmentwide handbook, monitoring monthly data
processing statistics, and instituting relevant training for employees.
As a result, DHS has reported reducing its backlog by about 24 percent
since implementing its plan.
However, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of FOIA processing across the department. Specifically,
implementation of the following practices could facilitate the
processing of information requests at a number of its major components:
* Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for
monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help reduce the
backlog of open requests.
* Component-specific training. Component-specific training could
enhance the efficiency of processing within component agencies.
* Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online
access to information concerning the status of their requests could
contribute to better customer service and higher staff productivity.
* Electronic dissemination of records. Releasing records in an
electronic format could provide cost savings and increase efficiency.
* Electronic redaction. By adopting electronic redaction more broadly,
DHS may be able to reduce the staff time otherwise spent manually
redacting records, while also improving the consistency of its
responses to requests.
By implementing these practices”which are already being used by certain
DHS components and other agencies”across major DHS components, the
department could further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency,
improve customer service, and respond to information requests in a more
timely fashion.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that key practices used by certain DHS components
and other agencies be implemented more consistently across the
department. DHS concurred with GAO‘s assessment and recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-260]. For more
information, contact Gregory C. Wilshusen at (202) 512-6244 or
wilshuseng@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program:
Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing within
Its Components:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its Major
Components:
Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume:
Figure:
Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process:
Abbreviations:
CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act:
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
OIP: Office of Information and Privacy:
OPEN Government Act: Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National
Government Act of 2007:
TSA: Transportation Security Administration:
USCIS: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services:
USSS: United States Secret Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 20, 2009:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
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.
In December 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13392, aimed at
improving agencies' disclosure of information consistent with FOIA.
[Footnote 2] The focus of the order was to achieve measurable
improvements in processing (including reducing the backlog of overdue
requests) and to reform programs that did not produce appropriate
results. Among other things, this order required each agency to review
its FOIA operations and develop improvement plans; each agency was to
submit a report to the Attorney General and the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget summarizing the results of the agency's review
and including a copy of its plan. These plans were to include specific
outcome-oriented goals and timetables, by which the agency head was to
evaluate the agency's success in implementing the plan. Agencies were
also required to include a section in their fiscal year 2006 and 2007
annual reports reporting on progress in implementing their plans.
A major focus of the executive 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 3]
(For clarity, we refer to this as "backlog of overdue requests" or
"overdue requests" to distinguish them from "pending requests," which
are all open requests, whether or not they have been responded to
within the statutory time limit.) The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) accounts for a major portion of pending requests governmentwide
and possesses the largest backlog of overdue requests in the
government.
In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees
on Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of DHS's FOIA
program. As agreed, our specific objectives were to determine (1) what
key steps DHS has taken to enhance its FOIA program, and (2) what
opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department.
To determine the key steps DHS has taken to enhance its program, we
reviewed the goals contained in the DHS FOIA improvement plan and
progress made on these goals, as reported in DHS's annual reports. We
also assessed actions taken to achieve these goals at seven major DHS
component agencies--those with the largest number of pending cases at
the end of fiscal year 2007. These components are U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), the United States Secret Service (USSS),
and the United States Coast Guard.
To determine what opportunities, if any, exist to improve the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of operations across the department,
we analyzed documentation from DHS regarding program structure,
procedures, and resources. We also reviewed similar documentation from
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State--two
agencies with types of information similar to DHS--and compared their
programs with those of DHS. A more detailed description of our
objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to March 2009 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:
DHS has taken steps to enhance its FOIA program. Specifically, DHS has
developed an improvement plan that included goals focused on
eliminating its backlog of overdue requests, implementing enhanced
training requirements, and deploying advanced technology. Further, the
DHS Privacy Office has initiated several actions to ensure policy
compliance and provide oversight of FOIA processing within departmental
component agencies, such as developing a departmentwide handbook,
monitoring monthly data processing statistics, and instituting
pertinent training for employees. As a result, three components have
reported significantly reducing their backlog of overdue requests. For
example, USCIS has reduced its backlog from approximately 89,000 in
September 2006 to about 70,000 in October 2008, a 21 percent reduction.
Overall, the department has reported achieving a backlog reduction of
about 24 percent since implementation of its improvement plan.
Nevertheless, opportunities exist for DHS to improve the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department.
Specifically, consistent implementation of the following practices
across major departmental components could facilitate the department's
processing of information requests:
* Internal monitoring and oversight. Establishing mechanisms for
monitoring and oversight of processing efficiency may help components
reduce their backlogs. Three of the seven major component agencies
within DHS have reported implementing monitoring and oversight
mechanisms within their programs and have reduced their backlogs. The
remaining four have not implemented such mechanisms, nor have they made
comparable reductions in their backlogs. By more consistently
establishing monitoring and oversight processes, DHS could reduce the
risk of not being able to provide responses to requests within the
statutory time limits.
* Component-specific training. Component-specific training--which goes
beyond general training to address processing details that are unique
within each of the components--could enhance the consistency and
efficiency of processing within those components. Of the seven major
components, five have begun implementing in-house component-specific
training for their staff. Officials from one of these components stated
that staff appeared more prepared to respond to requests, particularly
regarding the application of exemptions. While the other DHS components
provide some form of training to their staff, it is not tailored to
their unique needs and circumstances. By developing and implementing
specialized training programs for their staff, components may be able
to increase the consistency and efficiency of their processing.
* Online status-checking services. Providing requesters with online
access to information concerning the status of their requests can
contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity. Two of
the seven major components have deployed or are in the process of
deploying an online status-check service, while five do not provide the
service. Officials from the component that has deployed the service
reported a reduction in the number of customer service calls, which has
allowed staff to spend more time on other duties. By implementing this
service more broadly, the department might be able to realize cost
savings and customer service benefits.
* Dissemination of records in an electronic format. The format (paper
or CD) in which a FOIA office releases records to requesters can affect
operating expenditures and processing efficiency. Three of the seven
major components have adopted electronic dissemination for larger
requests and reported reducing operating costs as a result. By
disseminating more records in an electronic form, DHS may be able to
reduce the operational costs of processing requests.
* Electronic redaction. Currently, five of DHS's seven major components
have broadly adopted electronic redaction processes and have reported
gains in staff efficiency as a result. The other two major components
continue to manually redact most records. By adopting electronic
redaction more broadly, these components may be able to reduce the time
otherwise spent manually redacting records, while also improving the
consistency of their products.
To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the
department's FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Homeland Security take actions to ensure that these key practices are
consistently adopted across the department's major components. In
written comments on a draft of this report, DHS concurred with our
assessment and recommendations and described actions underway to
address the recommendations.
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 4] the government required individuals to demonstrate
"a need to know" before granting the right to examine federal records.
FOIA established a "right to know" standard, under which an
organization or any member of the public could receive access to
information held by federal agencies without demonstrating a need or
reason. The "right to know" standard shifted the burden of proof from
the individual to government agencies and required agencies to provide
proper justification when denying requests for access to records.
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 records are the best known type of disclosure, and require
agencies to promptly provide records in any readily producible form or
format specified by the requester.
Not all information held by the government is subject to FOIA. The act
prescribes nine specific categories of information that can be exempt
from disclosure, including, but not limited to, trade secrets and
certain confidential commercial or financial information, certain
personnel and medical files, and certain law enforcement records.
[Footnote 5] When agencies deny all or part of a request, the act
requires that agencies notify requesters of the reasons for the adverse
determination and grants requesters the right to appeal the decision.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the primary source of FOIA oversight
and policy guidance for agencies. Within the department, the Office of
Information and Privacy (OIP) has lead responsibility for providing
guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. OIP issues a
guide addressing various aspects of the act and conducts a variety of
related training programs for personnel across the government.
Executive Order Led to 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. The order directed agencies to provide requesters with
courteous and appropriate service, as well as ways to learn about the
FOIA process, the status of their requests, and the public availability
of other agency records. The order also instructed agencies to process
requests efficiently, achieve measurable process improvements
(including a reduction in the backlog of overdue requests),[Footnote 6]
and reform programs that did not produce appropriate results. A major
focus of the order was for agency plans to include specific actions to
eliminate or reduce any backlog of overdue requests.
To carry out this policy, the order required, among other things, that
agency heads designate Chief FOIA Officers to oversee their programs.
The officers were directed to review their operations and develop
improvement plans to ensure that administration of the act 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.
In April 2006, OIP posted guidance to assist federal agencies in
implementing the order's requirements for reviews and improvement
plans.[Footnote 7] The guidance suggested several potential areas that
agencies might consider when conducting their reviews, such as enhanced
training, centralization of administration, automation of request
tracking, automation of electronic records dissemination, and improved
records redaction.
In order to extend the backlog reduction efforts beyond the time frame
of the executive order, in September 2007, OIP posted guidance to
agencies on submitting backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008,
2009, and 2010.[Footnote 8] Any agency that had a request or appeal
pending beyond the statutory time limit at the end of fiscal year 2007
was to establish backlog reduction goals for fiscal years 2008, 2009,
and 2010. In addition, in June 2008, OIP posted guidance requiring all
agencies that had not made progress in reducing their backlogs over the
previous 2 years to prepare backlog reduction plans.
On December 31, 2007, the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our
National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) was enacted. This
law amended FOIA by, among other things, addressing the time limits for
agencies to act on requests, requiring agencies to designate chief FOIA
officers, requiring that agencies assign a tracking number to each
request requiring more than 10 days to process, and requiring agencies
to establish a telephone line or Internet service that requesters could
use to determine the status of their request.
An Overview of the FOIA Process at Federal Agencies:
Although the specific procedures for handling requests vary among
agencies, the major phases in the process are similar across the
government: receiving the request, logging and scoping the request,
searching for and retrieving potentially responsive records, preparing
records for release, performing a final review, and releasing records
to the requester. Figure 1 depicts the process, from the receipt of a
request through the release of records.
Figure 1: Overview of the Generic FOIA Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
1) Receive request;
2) Process request:
* Log FOIA request;
* Scope request;
* Estimate fees;
* Generate initial response;
3) Retrieve records:
* Search for responsive records;
* Request records;
* Review responsive records;
4) Process records:
* Make redactions:
* Apply exemption codes;
* Calculate fees;
5) Approve release of records:
* Review redacted records;
* Generate response;
* Approve release;
6) Release records.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
[End of figure]
The process begins when an agency receives (whether by mail, phone,
fax, or over the Internet) a request for federal records. A staff
member logs the request in the agency's tracking system, and then
reviews the request to determine its scope, estimates fees, and
provides an initial response to the requester. Next, the staff searches
for responsive records, which may include searching for records at
multiple locations and program offices. After they are located, the
records are reviewed to confirm that they are within the scope of the
request.
The staff then prepares records by removing any nonreleasable
information based upon the statutory exemptions--a process known as
redaction. Once records have been prepared, the staff calculates any
applicable fees for research time and reproduction costs.[Footnote 9]
After redaction and fee calculation, the staff submits the records for
a final review, possibly by the agency's general counsel. If records
pass this final review, the agency generates a response letter
summarizing actions regarding the request and releases the records 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, whether the agency FOIA office is required to work with
offices with 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).
The organizational structure of an agency's program can affect its
processing procedures. While some agencies centralize processing in one
main office, others receive and process requests at the division or
field office level. The structure influences how and where requests are
received by the agency, how an agency searches for responsive records,
the availability of relevant subject matter experts, and how an agency
monitors the status of requests.
The DHS FOIA Program Is Largely Decentralized:
Established in 2003, DHS is responsible for leading the effort to
secure the United States by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks
and protecting against, and responding to, threats and hazards to the
nation. To accomplish its mission, DHS incorporated 22 separate federal
agencies and organizations, including FEMA (formerly an independent
agency) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly part
of DOJ). Several of these agencies remained separate component agencies
within DHS, while others were reorganized into new DHS components. The
functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example,
were divided among three DHS components: CBP, ICE, and USCIS.
FOIA processing is implemented separately within each of the major DHS
component agencies. At the department level, the Privacy Office
coordinates agencywide implementation by developing policy, performing
oversight of component operations, providing training, and preparing
the annual FOIA report. The Privacy Office also processes requests
related to DHS headquarters operations. However, all other processing
of requests is handled by agency components, which staff and operate
their own offices. FOIA officers within these components are
responsible for managing and implementing their respective operations,
as well as defining their administrative structures.
The scale and performance of FOIA processing vary across the
department. The components with the largest reported number of pending
cases at the end of fiscal year 2007 included CBP, FEMA, ICE, TSA,
USCIS, USSS, and the United States Coast Guard. These components are
also among those to have received and processed the largest number of
requests in fiscal year 2007.
DHS Has Taken Several Key Steps to Enhance Its FOIA Program:
In response to Executive Order 13392, DHS and its major components have
taken steps to enhance the department's program. DHS developed an
improvement plan that included goals focused on eliminating its backlog
of overdue requests, implementing enhanced training requirements, and
deploying advanced technology. In addition, the DHS Privacy Office
initiated several actions to ensure policy compliance and provide
oversight of individual components, such as developing a departmentwide
handbook, completing file reviews at each component, monitoring monthly
data processing statistics, and instituting training for affected
employees. As a result, several of the components have reported
decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. Specifically, three
components reported achieving large reductions in their backlogs.
The DHS Improvement Plan Outlined Goals for Eliminating Backlog and
Improving Training and Technology:
In January 2007, DHS submitted an improvement plan that focused on
eliminating the backlog of overdue requests, enhancing education and
training, and implementing technological advancements. In order to
formulate its plan and specific goals, DHS surveyed each component and
office on specific issues relating to FOIA operations, such as staffing
levels, electronic processing capabilities, training opportunities and
requirements, and impediments other than staffing that contribute to
backlogs.
To reduce its backlog, DHS established goals that included hiring
additional personnel, implementing operational improvements at USCIS,
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
components submitted weekly and monthly data to the Chief FOIA Officer.
Goals related to education and training included establishing a renewed
emphasis on the importance of FOIA and instituting semiannual FOIA
officer meetings; they also required components and offices to provide
all employees with information about their obligations and all
professional staff who spend more than half of their time implementing
the act to take annual training offered by DOJ's OIP.
Lastly, goals for technological improvements included identifying a Web-
based case management software application with electronic tracking
capabilities, setting a recommended departmentwide standard for
processing software, requiring all component offices to have a Web site
or a link to the departmental FOIA Web site from their component home
page, and increasing proactive disclosure of documents on component and
office Web sites to allow public access to records without submitting a
formal request.
The DHS Privacy Office Has Taken Steps to Improve Departmental
Oversight of Its FOIA Operations:
In response to the executive order and to elevate the importance of the
act at the department level, the Chief FOIA Officer established a new
position of Deputy Chief FOIA Officer within the DHS Privacy
Office.[Footnote 10] This position was established to, among other
things, assure program oversight over all of the components.
The Privacy Office initiated several actions to ensure policy
compliance and provide oversight to individual components. For example,
the office developed a handbook for use departmentwide. The document,
which is undergoing internal review, establishes policies and
procedures that each component must follow. In addition, the Deputy
Chief FOIA Officer and the Associate Director of Disclosure Policy and
FOIA Program Development visited each component for an informal file
review. They reviewed select cases at each component in order to ensure
compliance with department policies and identify any processing
problems. If a problem was detected, they revisited those components to
help develop a plan of action to remedy the problem.
In an effort to reduce backlog, the DHS improvement plan required all
components to submit monthly data reports. These reports included the
number of open cases, time ranges of the open cases, the date of the
oldest request, the number of staff, and the number of requests
received and processed that month. After receiving the reports, the
Deputy Chief FOIA Officer was to notify each component via e-mail
regarding their progress against backlog goals set in response to DOJ
guidance.
Lastly, to ensure compliance with department policies, the Privacy
Office has set requirements for training. The DHS improvement plan
stated that education and training would ensure a consistent
interpretation of common aspects of the administrative process.
Accordingly, it required that all components make available "FOIA 101"
training for employees with FOIA-related duties. The training includes
an overview of the history of the act, DHS's FOIA organization chart,
information on the life cycle of a request, staff responsibilities, and
information on exemptions. In addition, all staff that spent more than
50 percent of their work time on FOIA were required to take annual
training offered by DOJ's OIP or an equivalent.
Several DHS Components Have Reported Reductions in Their Backlogs of
Overdue Requests as a Result of Departmental Improvement Efforts:
Following the emphasis on backlog reduction in Executive Order 13392
and DHS's improvement plan, three of the seven major components have
reported progress in decreasing their backlogs of overdue requests. As
of October 17, 2008, the overall departmental backlog has been reduced
about 24 percent since September 2006. Factors contributing to this
reduction include enhanced oversight by the Privacy Office and program
modifications instituted by individual components, such as centralizing
operations, hiring additional personnel, and technology improvements.
Table 1 shows the reported overall DHS reduction in overdue requests
and the changes in overdue requests experienced by each of its major
components.
Table 1: Reported Changes in Overdue Requests at DHS and Its Major
Components:
DHS component: DHS total;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 99,211;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 75,163;
Fall/rise: Number: -24,048;
Fall/rise: Percentage:-24.2%.
DHS component: ICE;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 7,346;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 16;
Fall/rise: Number: -7,330;
Fall/rise: Percentage: -99.8.
DHS component: USCIS;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 89,124;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 70,175;
Fall/rise: Number: -18,949;
Fall/rise: Percentage: -21.3.
DHS component: USSS;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 730;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 560;
Fall/rise: Number: -170;
Fall/rise: Percentage: -23.3.
DHS component: Coast Guard[A];
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 906;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 1,152;
Fall/rise: Number: +246;
Fall/rise: Percentage: +27.2.
DHS component: FEMA;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 236;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 619;
Fall/rise: Number: +383;
Fall/rise: Percentage: +162.3.
DHS component: CBP;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 524;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 2,198;
Fall/rise: Number: +1,674;
Fall/rise: Percentage: +319.5.
DHS component: TSA;
Number of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 45;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 321;
Fall/rise: Number: +276;
Fall/rise: Percentage: +613.3.
DHS component: All other components;
umber of overdue requests as of: September 15, 2006: 300;
Number of overdue requests as of: October 17, 2008: 122;
Fall/rise: Number: -178;
Fall/rise: Percentage: -59.3.
Source: GAO analysis of self-reported agency data.
[A] Coast Guard was unable to report its number of overdue requests for
September 2006; monthly numbers used are from August 2006 and represent
headquarters' overdue cases only.
[End of table]
USCIS has reported a substantial reduction in its backlog. Despite
having one of the highest backlogs within the department and the
federal government, it has reduced its backlog by 18,949 requests
(about 21 percent) since September 2006. Component officials attributed
the reduction to the centralization of their FOIA program, hiring of
additional staff, and the elimination of 23,179 requests whose
requesters did not have continued interest in obtaining the
information. In October 2007, USCIS completed a transition from 50
decentralized FOIA offices to a single centralized office. The
centralization enabled them to maximize their resources and focus on
reducing their backlog of overdue requests. The component has also
hired 10 additional staff since the centralization. In addition, in
July 2008, USCIS awarded a backlog reduction contract intended to
eliminate its backlog within 15 to 18 months from the award of the
contract. The contract is to provide 74 staff that will be tasked to
process the oldest requests until the entire backlog is exhausted.
Likewise, ICE has also reported a considerable reduction in its backlog
of overdue requests. According to agency officials, an almost 100
percent reduction has been achieved since September 2006, reducing the
number of overdue requests by about 7,300. The component took a variety
of actions, including centralizing its program and implementing a new
electronic tracking system. The FOIA Officer stated that centralization
of the program allowed for greater consistency in processing procedures
and the use of technology. In addition, ICE was able to eliminate
approximately 1,200 overdue requests by determining that the requesters
were no longer interested in them.
As part of its operational improvements in FOIA processing, DHS
officials reported that they had improved the way the department
handles requests relating to Alien-File (A-File) records,[Footnote 11]
which are processed by USCIS and ICE. Both components experienced a
large reduction of their backlogs by streamlining the approach used for
processing these requests. Previously, a major hurdle these components
faced was the sharing of the existing 55 million hardcopy A-Files.
Because the A-Files contain both benefit and enforcement documents, an
individual file may be in the possession of either component at any
given time. When either one of the components received a request for
the contents of a file, that component had to locate the file and
determine whether it should have responsibility for processing the
request. After November 2006, the ownership of all A-Files was
transferred to USCIS. In order to facilitate faster processing, ICE
provided USCIS with a processing guide containing the policies,
procedures, and background information necessary to enable USCIS to
process A-File requests on behalf of ICE. This process eliminated the
need to refer records to ICE for review and determination of
releasability, which could result in unnecessary delays.
USSS reported a 23 percent reduction in its backlog of overdue requests
since September 2006, reducing the number of overdue requests by 170.
Officials stated that this reduction was mainly due to the addition of
staff supporting the FOIA mission and the creation of a task force,
consisting of employees from each directorate, to focus on closing
overdue requests over a 3-month span.
Opportunities Exist for DHS to Further Improve FOIA Processing within
Its Components:
DHS components and other federal agencies have identified key practices
they have adopted to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
their request-processing operations. These key practices include
internal monitoring and oversight to help reduce component backlogs,
specialized training within components, providing requesters with
online access to information concerning the status of their requests,
releasing records in an electronic format, and the use of electronic
redaction.
Internal Monitoring and Oversight Could Help Reduce DHS Components'
Backlogs:
Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS
components, implementing an internal monitoring and oversight process
can help agencies better track their processing efficiency and thus
reduce their backlogs of requests. These organizations have found that
the ability to monitor the status of incoming requests can greatly
enhance their ability to meet the statutory time limit to respond to
them because it can help reduce the amount of time needed to determine
the location of responsive records and retrieve them for processing.
Close monitoring helps ensure that requests and their associated
records do not languish unattended at any given step in the process.
DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review has reported that it
implemented an oversight and monitoring process for its FOIA program.
It operates a centralized program, where all requests are received at
the main office. Responsive records may be located at any one of the 54
immigration courts throughout the United States. According to DOJ
officials, in order to facilitate a timely and efficient response from
the immigration courts, at the end of each day, the main office
automatically generates and sends a report to any immigration court
that has been identified as possessing responsive records for an
outstanding request. The officials stated that by closely monitoring
those courts that were slow in sending responsive records, it has been
able to obtain records in a more timely manner.
Likewise, within DHS, three of the seven major DHS components have
reported implementing mechanisms for monitoring the processing of
information requests. For example, USCIS operates a centralized FOIA
program from the National Records Center in Lee's Summit, Missouri. All
requests are received at the center and imported into an electronic
tracking system. The system allows staff to track the status and
whereabouts of each request from receipt until it has been closed. In
addition, the component uses bar codes to associate records with a
physical location. As a result, files can be rapidly located at the
center or at any other location. The chief program official stated that
the use of the bar codes greatly sped up the process of locating
responsive records for processing. In these cases, staff can identify
the location of records using the bar code and contact the appropriate
office to obtain copies for processing. In addition, USCIS has staff
dedicated to the continual monitoring of outstanding records. Each
month, USCIS sends reports to its field sites and other components that
have outstanding records in order to expedite the process. According to
program officials, these monitoring and oversight mechanisms have
contributed to the reduction of the backlog of overdue requests.
ICE officials also reported that they have implemented monitoring and
oversight mechanisms. The component operates a centralized program,
where all of the requests are received at the main office. After a
request is received, staff input it into a tracking system, and then it
is assigned to the appropriate office for processing. The tracking
system allows staff to obtain key information about the request, such
as the responsible office, the date by which the records need to be
received at the main office, and if applicable, the number of days by
which the request is overdue. In addition, the program director
generates a weekly report that identifies any requests that have not
been responded to within the allotted time and sends messages to notify
program offices of their overdue responses. In order to facilitate
timely and efficient retrieval of records, program offices have the
ability to provide their responses via e-mail to the main office. The
program director stated that this monitoring process and the ability of
program offices to send responsive records by e-mail have greatly
improved the timeliness of responses to information requests and
reduced the backlog of overdue requests.
In technical comments on a draft of this report, USSS stated that it
has a system for tracking due dates for incoming requests and also has
the ability to generate reports to monitor overdue requests to ensure
timely responses.
In contrast to these examples, the other major components have not yet
implemented comparable monitoring and oversight mechanisms. For
example, although CBP, FEMA, and TSA operate centralized FOIA programs
where all requests are received or tracked at one location, none
currently has a mechanism for obtaining responsive records from field
offices expeditiously.
Lastly, because the Coast Guard operates its program in a decentralized
fashion--each of its 1,300 units is able to directly receive and
respond to requests--it has limited ability to monitor the status of
individual requests or whether responsive records have been located and
retrieved. The Chief of the Office of Information Management estimated
that between two-thirds and three-fourths of all requests are received
and answered in field offices. The Coast Guard currently does not have
an oversight mechanism to monitor the timeliness of processing at its
individual units.
Given the success of using monitoring and oversight processes at DOJ
and two DHS components, the department may be able to improve
responsiveness to requests and reduce backlogs at other major
components by establishing mechanisms to efficiently monitor and
oversee internal processing of information requests within those
components.
Component-Specific Training Could Help Enhance the Efficiency of FOIA
Processing:
Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS
components, component-specific training--which goes beyond general
training to address processing details that are unique within each of
the components--can help ensure consistent administration of the FOIA
process within each component. The department improvement plan
acknowledges that specialized training is essential for processing
professionals. Further, DOJ's OIP highlighted the need for enhanced
training in its guidance on activities required by Executive Order
13392. The guidance states that the issuance of Executive Order 13392
is a good occasion for agencies to, among other things, consider
whether they are conducting their own training sessions with sufficient
regularity.
While certain basic aspects of FOIA implementation are the same
throughout a large department such as DHS, other aspects of the process
can vary in significant ways across the department's components. For
example, each component possesses different types of records; some
agencies may have primarily first-party records (such as USCIS's A-
Files), while others may have more records relating to investigations
(such as the Coast Guard's Marine Investigations). Further, component
agencies are likely to utilize specific exemptions that directly relate
to the records they possess. For example, some may frequently use an
exemption that focuses on an agency's internal personnel rules and
practices, while others may more often use an exemption for information
compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Two component agencies within DOJ reported utilizing component-specific
training for their staff to enhance the efficiency of their processing
information requests. Specifically, according to agency officials, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides its new staff with entry-
level, basic, and advanced training programs. The entry-level staff
undergo a 6-week training regimen that includes an overview of the type
of records at the FBI, how to scope requests and search for records,
and how to use the bureau's tracking system. After the staff complete
the entry-level training, they are required to take one of two
additional training classes, depending on their job responsibilities.
Advanced training is also available on litigation support and
prepublication review. FBI officials stated that, in their opinion, the
training program was responsible for the retention of qualified staff
because the progression and challenges presented by the various levels
of training allowed staff to develop their FOIA expertise.
Likewise, DOJ's Executive Office for United States Attorneys offers a
specialized training conference for FOIA staff at each of the U.S.
Attorney offices. The training conference includes explanations of FOIA
exemptions and how they are used, a discussion of the intake process,
examples of forms used in the process, and a discussion of the FOIA
contacts' role. In addition, officials stated that the Executive Office
records its training conference and makes it available online for staff
to view. Each new field office employee is required to take the
training.
Five components within DHS have similarly implemented in-house,
component-specific FOIA training for their staff:
* USCIS provides newly hired staff with a mandatory training program
that includes guidance tailored to its program. In a report written in
response to the Executive Order, the USCIS's Ombudsman recognized that
frequent and useful training for new and existing staff had been
lacking and recommended that a training program be developed and
implemented for all staff to ensure effective compliance. In response
to the recommendation, USCIS developed a mandatory in-house training
program that includes hands-on modules for processing and approving
information requests. The new program included a focus on rules
regarding exemptions as applied to USCIS, analysis of typical case
studies, and procedures for handling documents from other components,
such as ICE. The Chief of the USCIS FOIA Program stated that staff who
had participated in the new training program appeared more prepared to
respond to requests, particularly regarding the application of
exemptions.
* The Coast Guard provides an annual specialized training seminar to
all FOIA Coordinators and personnel who process requests. The training
includes a description of records, good record management practices,
overview of exemptions, multiunit responses, and search standards.
* ICE hosts a specialized "virtual-university" training module, which
includes information on how to process a request, what files are
covered by FOIA, and what may be withheld from disclosure under an
exemption.
* TSA offers a specialized online training module, which describes
typical types of requested records and how to process a request.
* CBP provides an 8-hour training class several times a year where
staff are introduced to the procedures involved in responding to a
request in a timely manner, how to create a case file, how to conduct
an adequate search for records that are responsive to the request, and
how to employ the nine exemptions for CBP records. Additionally, they
also provide tailored training sessions to offices that handle certain
specialized records.
In contrast, two major DHS components do not make specialized,
component-specific training available to their staff. USSS and FEMA
provide only on-the-job training or "generic" training offered by
outside contractors. For example, USSS provides on-the-job training and
shadowing and mentoring programs for its staff, who are required to
attend outside training, such as the DOJ OIP training, American Society
of Access Professionals conferences, and classes at the United States
Department of Agriculture Graduate School.
While generic training offered by outside professionals is valuable,
component-specific training can better ensure compliance with component-
specific policies and procedures and greater consistency in the
application of exemptions. Also, offering this specialized training to
new staff ensures that they are knowledgeable about policies and
component-specific practices before they begin processing requests,
which can yield faster processing times and more accurate and
consistent processing. USSS and FEMA may have opportunities to enhance
the consistency and accuracy of their processing by developing and
implementing specialized training programs for their staff.
Providing Request Status Information Online Could Enhance Staff
Productivity and Customer Service at DHS Components:
Based on experience at a major DHS component, providing requesters with
online access to information concerning the status of their requests
can contribute to improved customer service and staff productivity.
According to officials at USCIS, not only does an online status-check
service provide requesters with instant access to information, it also
reduces the need to divert staff resources away from request processing
to respond to telephone status inquiries.
Actions at USCIS have shown that productivity and efficiency can be
enhanced by implementing an online status-check service. According to
component officials, since it was initiated in May 2008, the USCIS
service has contributed to improved staff productivity and provided
requesters with faster access to status information. The system allows
requesters to access status information by entering their unique
tracking number into a form on USCIS's FOIA Web site. The Web site then
returns real-time status information extracted from the component's
tracking system.
Agency officials reported that the service has improved the efficiency
of their program. Since deploying the service in May 2008, USCIS
reported experiencing a reduction of customer service phone calls
received in the following 3 months. As reflected in table 3 below, the
monthly call volume for the months following implementation (May
through October) was less than during the 4 months prior to
implementation (January through April). USCIS officials estimated that
60 percent of all FOIA-related customer service phone calls are status
inquiries.
Table 2: USCIS Monthly Customer Service Call Volume:
Number of customer service calls received, 2008:
January: 2,857;
February: 2,636;
March: 2,619;
April: 2,803;
May: 2,677;
June: 2,554;
July: 2,449;
August: 2,301;
September: 2,318;
October: 2,473.
Source: Self-reported agency data.
[End of table]
The Director of the National Records Center stated that the online
status-check service, by reducing the number of customer service calls,
has also allowed staff to spend more time on other duties, such as
processing requests. Before USCIS deployed the service, requesters
seeking information about their requests needed to call the service
center and speak directly with staff.
Like USCIS, ICE has also developed and implemented an online status-
check service. Deployed in December 2008, it allows requesters to query
the tracking system regarding the status of their requests by filling
out a form on the agency's Web site. ICE's FOIA Officer described the
online status-check service as part of an effort to enhance customer
service and reduce the number of status request phone calls ICE
receives. At the time of our review, the ICE service had not been in
operation long enough for data to be collected on the benefits it has
yielded.
In contrast to USCIS and ICE, the other five major DHS components have
not yet deployed online status-check services. In order for agency
components to provide an online status-check capability, they must
maintain tracking systems that capture status information for all
requests and can make it available for online queries. Three of the
five components operate comprehensive tracking systems but do not
provide the service. The other two neither provide an online service
nor possess a sufficiently comprehensive tracking system to support
one.
USSS is an example of a component that has not deployed an online
status-check service, even though it operates a comprehensive tracking
system. The agency instructs requesters who are seeking status
information to call the FOIA service center or submit their request's
unique tracking number through its Web site. Once a status inquiry is
received, staff search the tracking system to provide requesters with
status information. Agency officials stated that, in response to
Executive Order 13392, USSS is considering the feasibility of deploying
an online status system. By deploying such a service, the component may
be able to reduce the staff resources it currently devotes to
responding to status inquiries.
Like USSS, FEMA does not provide an online service, despite operating a
comprehensive tracking system. Currently, when requesters call or e-
mail FEMA's central office seeking status information, staff must
contact the relevant program offices to determine the status of the
request and relay that information to the requester. Agency officials
stated that responding to requester calls to its FOIA Helpline was a
full-time job, and that transitioning to an online status service would
be cost-effective and efficient for both the agency and requesters.
Although agency officials stated that FEMA is developing a database
feature to allow requesters to view status information through its FOIA
Web site, they did not provide an estimate of when the service would be
available. Until the online status service is made available, FEMA will
likely continue to devote significant staff resources to responding to
status inquiries.
TSA also continues to use staff to manually search its tracking system
to determine a request's status. TSA officials stated that, for
technical reasons, it would not be feasible to develop an online status
service based on its current comprehensive tracking system. Instead,
staff reply to requester inquiries in the same format (e-mail or phone)
that the inquiry was received, typically within 24 to 48 hours. Agency
officials also stated that the FOIA office is exploring adopting other
case management software applications that could support an online
status service. If TSA ultimately develops such a capability, it might
be able to reduce the staff resources devoted to responding to status
inquiries.
Currently, the FOIA tracking systems at the Coast Guard and CBP are not
sufficiently comprehensive to support an online status service. The
Coast Guard operates separate tracking systems for each of its 1,300
field offices. Requesters seeking the status of their requests must
inquire directly with the Coast Guard field office responsible for
processing the request. Similarly, CBP cannot yet provide a component-
wide online status service because its tracking system does not capture
current status information for commercial or financial requests
processed by offices or ports other than its central office. For such
requests, CBP's tracking system, which is manually updated each month,
records when the request was received and to which office or port it
was referred. The tracking system is also updated when the office or
port notifies the central office that the request was processed. CBP
officials stated that they had not deployed an online service for
noncommercial and nonfinancial requests because CBP does not provide
outside entities access to its tracking system. As a result, requesters
seeking status information for noncommercial or nonfinancial requests,
which account for approximately 95 percent of CBP's requests, must
phone their inquiry to personnel at CBP's central office. By providing
an online status check service, the Coast Guard and CBP could improve
customer service and reduce staff resources devoted to responding to
status inquiries.
Releasing Records for Large Requests in an Electronic Format Could
Provide Cost Savings and Improve Efficiency:
The format (paper or electronic) on which records are released to
requesters can affect operating expenditures and processing efficiency.
Based on actions taken at DOJ, as well as within several DHS
components, using electronic dissemination to respond to "large"
requests (requests involving many document pages) can decrease the
amount of resources expended on paper, toner, and postage. In such
cases, agency officials report that the cost of copying responsive
records onto a CD and mailing the CD to the requester is generally
significantly less than printing and mailing the information on paper.
DOJ has used electronic dissemination to improve the efficiency of its
processing. For example, the Executive Office for Immigration Review
has used electronic dissemination to streamline its FOIA process. Prior
to adopting a policy of providing records on CD by default, the
Executive Office's staff often engaged in lengthy negotiations with
requesters over reproduction fees. Agency officials cited the
transition to releasing records on CD as a major factor in reducing the
agency's backlog because it reduced the need for staff to spend time
negotiating over fees with requesters.
Likewise, three of DHS's seven major components have used electronic
dissemination to reduce operating costs when responding to large
requests:
* USCIS officials reported that they respond to approximately 60
percent of requests by mailing electronic copies of records on CD,
accounting for 80 percent of the total number of released pages. The
remaining 40 percent of requests are released on paper, either because
the request is less than 15 pages or because the requester specifically
requests a paper format. Although they have not documented the costs of
providing responsive records on CD, USCIS officials estimated that
electronic dissemination had reduced their paper and toner costs by
half.
* ICE also has a policy of releasing records on CD, except when a
requester specifies paper. ICE's FOIA Information System Security
Officer estimated that electronic dissemination had reduced the
office's paper consumption by almost 90 percent.
* FEMA also has a policy of using electronic dissemination (on CD) for
large requests.
DHS's four remaining major components release records on paper, unless
otherwise specified by the requester:
* CBP officials stated that they were focusing their efforts on hiring
staff to process requests and they would consider process enhancements,
such as electronic dissemination, once they achieved full staffing.
* Coast Guard officials stated that they had not adopted a policy of
defaulting to an electronic format because they had not received
guidance from DHS on this subject and because it may be less expensive
for them to reproduce records on paper.
* TSA officials stated that their FOIA office releases records on paper
based on its understanding that this is the preference of requesters,
and only provides records in electronic format when specifically
requested.
* USSS officials stated that the agency considered adopting a policy of
releasing records electronically or on CD when FOIA requesters did not
specify a preference for paper, but decided not to adopt such a policy
out of deference to requesters who do not have the means or capability
to access information stored electronically.
While it may be less expensive to respond to small requests in a paper
format, it can be more economical to respond to large requests in an
electronic format. Adopting a release policy that more fully
incorporates electronic means of dissemination when it is economically
advisable could reduce the operational costs of processing requests, as
well as the staff resources diverted to negotiating the release format
with requesters.
Use of Electronic Redaction Could Allow Efficient Processing of
Requests:
Rapidly and accurately removing (redacting) nonreleasable data from
requested records is an integral part of responding to FOIA requests in
a timely manner. DOJ's Implementation Guidance notes that electronic
redaction software can enable agencies to process requests more
efficiently than through manual redaction.[Footnote 12] Based on
actions taken at DOJ and the Department of State, as well as within
several DHS components, the use of electronic redaction can allow for
more timely responses to requests. Electronic redaction involves using
software to eliminate nonreleasable data from electronic files. The
software allows staff to quickly select text or images to be removed
and annotate the text with the reasons (applicable exemptions) for the
redactions. Manual redaction is more labor-intensive, typically
involving photocopying or scanning a document after removing
nonreleasable information by physically cutting, covering, or marking
each page.
Officials at DOJ and the Department of State reported that electronic
redaction had led to improvements in the efficiency of their operations
for processing information requests. FBI officials stated that
electronic redaction had enabled the agency to significantly reduce
staff while doubling productivity. Since 2002, the use of automation,
including electronic redaction, has allowed the FBI to reduce staff
levels from 630 to 230 employees, while reducing its number of pending
requests from 2,500 to 1,800. Also, the rate of processing by
individual staff was reported to have increased from 500 pages to 1,000
pages per month. Likewise, Bureau of Prisons officials estimated that
electronic redaction had reduced redaction time by 10 percent. The
State Department's Director of Information Programs and Services
likewise credited electronic redaction with improving efficiency and
also noted that it resulted in a more professional product.
Officials from several DHS components also reported having improved the
efficiency or quality of their request processing by adopting
electronic redaction:
* CBP officials stated that since November 25, 2008, all of the
permanent FOIA staff in the central office have used electronic
redaction software to process records. They estimated that 90 to 95
percent of records are redacted electronically.
* USCIS officials reported that they use electronic redaction
exclusively. A senior official estimated that, since adopting
electronic redaction in 1998, the agency had significantly increased
the efficiency of the its redaction process by eliminating the need to
manually cut or mark records.
* ICE's FOIA Officer stated that electronic redaction had resulted in
significant time-savings over previous manual redaction processes.
* According to USSS officials, approximately 70 to 75 percent of the
records they process are redacted electronically. USSS officials credit
electronic redaction with increasing productivity, reducing response
time frames, and improving customer service. The remaining 25 to 30
percent of USSS records are processed manually because of security
requirements prohibiting the electronic redaction of classified
records.
* FEMA officials reported that they use electronic redaction to respond
to approximately 90 percent of their requests. FEMA officials stated
that implementing electronic redaction has enabled faster processing
and a more professional and consistent product for requesters. FEMA
still manually processes 10 percent of its records, either because the
records are classified or because they have already been partially
manually redacted.
In contrast, the Coast Guard and TSA do not use electronic redaction
when responding to the majority of their requests:
* Coast Guard officials estimated that 7 percent of their FOIA staff
have access to electronic redaction software, and approximately 70
percent of the records processed by those with access are redacted
electronically. Nevertheless, Coast Guard officials stated that
electronic redaction had reduced processing time for large volume
records and reduced the likelihood of improperly releasing information.
Coast Guard officials added that funding had been requested for an
electronic system located at all major FOIA processing centers which
would enable online redactions.
* Although all of TSA's FOIA staff members have access to electronic
redaction software, only 10 percent of records are redacted
electronically. Agency officials stated that TSA had been unable to
adopt electronic redaction more broadly because of difficulties
integrating the redaction software with TSA's file sharing application.
The officials added that TSA is considering other software solutions
that might allow broader adoption of electronic redaction.
By more broadly adopting electronic redaction, the Coast Guard and TSA
have opportunities to improve the efficiency of their operations.
Conclusions:
While DHS has made advances in ensuring compliance and oversight among
its components, such as developing a departmentwide handbook and
monitoring monthly data processing statistics, opportunities exist for
further improvements. Practices in place at DOJ and the Department of
State, and within a number of DHS's own component agencies, have
demonstrated that a variety of enhancements are possible. However,
these key practices have not yet been implemented consistently across
the department. Such practices include monitoring and oversight of FOIA
processing, component-specific training, providing online status
information, releasing records in electronic format, and using
electronic redaction. By consistently implementing these practices
across all major departmental components, DHS is likely to be able to
further reduce its backlog, increase efficiency, improve customer
service, and respond to FOIA requests in a more timely fashion.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the
department's FOIA program, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Homeland Security take the following five actions:
* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security
Administration, and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing
monitoring and oversight mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of
overdue requests.
* Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and United States Secret Service to consider developing and
implementing specialized training programs for their staff.
* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security
Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States Secret
Service to consider providing requesters with an online mechanism to
obtain information about the status of their requests.
* Direct the FOIA Officers at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Transportation Security Administration, United States Secret Service,
and United States Coast Guard to consider establishing a policy of
primarily disseminating records to requesters in an electronic format
when large numbers of pages are involved.
* Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security
Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the
use of electronic redaction when processing requests.
* Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ, and the Department of
State for review and comment. In response, we received written comments
from the Director of DHS's GAO/OIG Liaison Office, which are reprinted
in appendix II. Officials from DOJ and the Department of State
indicated that they had no comments on the draft report.
In his written comments, the Director stated that DHS concurred with
our assessment and recommendations and stated that the department will
use the report to ensure improvement to its FOIA program in the future.
In addition, DHS provided information on actions certain components are
taking to address our recommendations. DHS also provided technical
comments by e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and interested
congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov. 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 III.
Signed by:
Gregory C. Wilshusen:
Director, Information Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
[End of section]
In enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the Committees
on Appropriations directed us to evaluate the operations of the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) program. Our specific objectives were to determine (1) what key
steps DHS has taken to improve its FOIA program, and (2) what
opportunities, if any, exist to improve the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department.
To determine the key steps DHS has taken to improve its program, we
reviewed the goals contained in the DHS improvement plan, the reported
progress made on these goals from the DHS annual FOIA reports, and
documentation regarding initiatives aimed at improving departmental
operations. To corroborate information obtained from the DHS Privacy
Office about the department's actions and reported reductions in
backlog, we obtained and analyzed supporting information from major
departmental components by observing processing operations and
obtaining documentation of improvement initiatives. We focused our work
on the seven agency components that reported the largest number of
pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007: U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration,
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the United
States Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. We obtained
and analyzed documentation and interviewed officials from each of these
components to assess DHS's performance. We also conducted site visits
at ICE and USCIS, which account for the majority of requests processed
at DHS, to analyze information regarding their processes and the
implementation of improvement initiatives. Further, we interviewed DHS
officials regarding the impact of organizational, technological, and
managerial actions on achieving departmental improvement plan goals.
To determine what opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of FOIA operations across the department, we
reviewed DHS-specific FOIA policies and procedures, including
documentation regarding program structure, processes, and resources, to
determine what practices were in place throughout the department. We
also reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance aimed at improving FOIA
operations across the government, including Executive Order 13392, the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) guidance on implementing Executive Order
13392, and the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National
Government Act of 2007. We then reviewed similar documentation from DOJ
and the Department of State--two agencies with types of information
similar to DHS--and compared their programs to DHS operations to
identify key practices that could be implemented more widely in DHS to
make improvements in efficiency and customer service. Specifically,
within DOJ, we analyzed key practices of FOIA programs at the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office
for Immigration Review, and the Executive Office for United States
Attorneys--the four components that reported the largest number of
pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2007--by discussing practices
with officials, analyzing documentation, and observing processing
activities firsthand to determine the impact they had on program
efficiency. To supplement information on key practices obtained from
DOJ and the Department of State, we analyzed documentation and
interviewed officials from each of the seven major component agencies
within DHS to determine which processes and improvement initiatives
they had implemented and the extent to which these actions had produced
tangible benefits. For components that had not implemented key
practices, we obtained and analyzed information about the reasons they
had not done so.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to January 2009 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: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
February 25, 2009:
Mr. Gregory C. Wilhausen:
Director, Information Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Wilhausen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) Draft Report GAO-09-260 entitled
Freedom of Information Act: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance its Program,
but Opportunities Exist to Improve Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains
grateful for all that the GAO has done to bring attention to issues
within our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program and concurs with
the findings of this report. The Department benefits from this
oversight and will use it to ensure improvement to our FOIA program in
the future. We appreciate the commitment the GAO has towards making the
DHS FOIA program successful.
Recommendations:
GAO Recommendation #1: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and
Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation
Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States
Secret Service to consider establishing monitoring and oversight
mechanisms to help reduce the backlog of overdue requests.
DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation
and the Chief FOIA Officer plans to direct the FOIA Officers at the
Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast Guard and
United States Secret Service to consider establishing monitoring and
oversight mechanisms to help reduce their respective backlogs of
overdue requests.
Components such as FEMA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are
already taking steps to enhance this aspect of their program. The FEMA
Disclosure Branch is developing a FOIA Scorecard that will be shared
with FEMA leadership on a weekly basis in order to instill a sense of
accountability. Furthermore, FEMA's Assistant Administrator for
Management approved contract funding for a Backlog Reduction Team. This
will be a performance-based contract in which FEMA's target is to
eliminate the backlog within 7 months of award.
At U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Executive Director,
Commercial Targeting, Office of International Trade, directed the CBP
FOIA Division Director to report the FOIA Division activity on a weekly
basis, beginning in September 2008. That weekly report provides the
Executive Director with the on-going progress of reducing the backlog
of overdue requests. Corrective actions such as temporary duty
assignments and shifting the focus of CBP FOIA Division priorities are
taken in response to the weekly report because of the importance of
timely responses to FOIA requests. This weekly reporting, along with
monthly reporting to DHS, will continue, as will any adjustments that
are necessary to reduce the backlog. The CBP FOIA Division will monitor
the progress made on reducing the existing backlog to work toward the
goal of eliminating it in the summer of 2009.
GAO Recommendation #2: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and United States Secret Service to
consider developing and implementing specialized training programs for
their staff.
DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation
and has begun addressing the issue. The Disclosure Branch at FEMA, for
example, has tailored the U.S. Department of Justice training to the
specific FOIA exemptions utilized most frequently within FEMA.
Furthermore, the FEMA Disclosure Branch is in the process of developing
a component-specific training to be utilized with the incoming
contractor support as well as the program office points of contact. The
Chief FOIA Officer will direct the FOIA Officer at the United States
Secret Service to consider augmenting existing training programs to
provide specialized training opportunities for their staff.
GAO Recommendation #3: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and
Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation
Security Administration, United States Coast Guard, and United States
Secret Service to consider providing requesters with an online
mechanism to obtain information about the status of their requests.
DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation.
The DHS Privacy Office recommended component FOIA offices follow USCIS'
lead in this arena in June 2008. Two components, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), for example, have already implemented online status-check
mechanisms for requesters. Several other components, including Customs
and Border Protection are currently assessing the feasibility of
implementing this type of feature. The Chief FOIA Officer plans to
direct the FOIA Officers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Transportation Security Administration. United States Coast Guard and
United States Secret Service to consider providing requesters with an
online status check tool.
GAO Recommendation #4: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Customs and
Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, United
States Secret Service and United States Coast Guard to consider
establishing a policy of primarily disseminating records to requesters
in an electronic format when large numbers of pages are involved.
DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation
and the Chief FOIA Officer will direct the FOIA Officers at Customs and
Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, United
States Secret Service and United States Coast Guard to consider
establishing a policy of primarily disseminating records to requesters
in an electronic format when large numbers of pages are involved.
GAO Recommendation #5: Direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation
Security Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider
expanding the use of electronic redaction when processing requests.
DHS Response: Concur - The Department concurs with this recommendation
and plans to direct the FOIA Officers at the Transportation Security
Administration and United States Coast Guard to consider expanding the
use of electronic redaction when processing requests.
We thank you for considering our comments on these very important
issues. We look forward to working with the GAO on future Homeland
Security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gregory C. Wilshusen, (202) 512-6244 or wilshuseng@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this
report were made by John de Ferrari, Assistant Director; Marisol Cruz;
Richard J. Hagerman; and Lee McCracken.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 5 U.S.C. § 552.
[2] Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of Information
(Washington, D.C., Dec. 14, 2005).
[3] This time may be extended by no more than 10 days in "unusual
circumstances," such as when requests involve a voluminous amount of
records or require consultation with another agency. The time limit
refers to the period for the agency to make a determination whether to
comply with the request. The requester is to be "immediately" notified
of the determination, the rationale, and of appeal rights for adverse
determinations. The recent OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
175) has addressed when the 20-day period commences and the
circumstances under which the period can be suspended (or "tolled").
[4] The act has been amended several times.
[5] There are also FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held
by law enforcement agencies.
[6] "Backlog requests" refer to FOIA requests to which an agency fails
to respond within the statutory time limit. Backlog requests are
distinct from the "pending cases" that are reported in the annual
reports. The latter are FOIA cases that remain open at the end of the
reporting period. In reports GAO issued before the President issued
Executive Order 13392, GAO used the term "backlog" to refer to these
pending cases.
[7] Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation
Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 2006). See [hyperlink,
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm].
[8] The template for the backlog reduction goals was amended in October
2007. Department of Justice, Modified Templates to Use When Submitting
Backlog Reduction Goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010. See
[hyperlink, http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2007foiapost18.htm].
[9] 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.
[10] The Chief Privacy Officer for DHS serves as the Chief FOIA Officer
for the department and has agencywide policy responsibility for
efficient and appropriate FOIA compliance.
[11] For more information on A-Files, see GAO, Immigration Benefits:
Additional Efforts Needed to Help Ensure Alien Files Are Located when
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-85] (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 27, 2006).
[12] Department of Justice, Executive Order 13392 Implementation
Guidance (posted Apr. 27, 2006). See [hyperlink
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2006foiapost6.htm].
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
