UK FOI: Journalists Make 11% of Requests

Freedom of Information requests were condemned last year as being abused by "lazy journalists", but the media was responsible for only 11% of them.

The details are contained in the Northern Ireland government's annual report on Freedom of Information.

It said the 11 NI government departments received a total of 3,164 such requests during 2007.

Of these 62% were from members of the public, 13% from businesses and 11% from the media.

Solicitors, public representatives and researchers account for the remaining 14%.

More here.

New Fed FOIA Study Out...

An Opportunity Lost...

A just completed study by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government shows that federal departments and agencies have made little if any progress in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, despite a two-year-old presidential order to improve service.

The CJOG findings are in stark contrast to a bullish Justice Department report made public in mid-June that claims “remarkable improvements.”

The CJOG review of performance reports shows agencies did cut their record backlog but more because of a steep decline in requests than stepped up processing of requests. It also indicated scant improvement and some regression in traditional measures of response, including the amount of time requesters have to wait for an answer and whether a request or an appeal is granted.

The Justice Department based its assessment primarily on progress agencies made toward self-established process goals. The CJOG study, using reporting requirements mandated by Congress, assessed actual performance in responding to FOIA requests.

The CJOG study looked at 25 departments and agencies that handle the bulk of the third-party information requests. It looked at but did not incorporate a comparative analysis of the performance of four agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration, that include large numbers of first person Privacy Act requests in their FOIA reporting. These requests are quickly and routinely handled and their inclusion would skew a meaningful analysis of FOIA response issues. Here’s what the CJOG review found:

The 25 agencies blew an opportunity to make a significant dent in their huge backlog of requests. Those agencies received the fewest requests since reporting began in 1998 — 63,000 fewer than 2006. But they processed only 2,100 more requests than they did in 2006 when the backlog soared to a record 39%.

The backlog did fall to 33% of requests processed, primarily because of significant reductions at Homeland Security (97% to 62%), HUD (188% to 10%), and the Securities and Exchange Commission, (126 to 55%). Eleven agencies showed no improvement or greater backlogs.

Faced with a mandate to bring down the backlog and improve service, agencies cut FOIA personnel. The number of FOIA workers fell by 8%. Spending on FOIA processing was down 3% .

Agencies got even stingier in granting requests. Fewer people got all the information they sought than at any time since agency reporting began in 1998. The percent of requesters getting either a full or a partial grant fell to 60%, also a record low.

Those who did get information still had to endure lengthy delays. Fifteen of the agencies reported slower processing times than the year before in the handling of “Simple” requests and 13 showed slower times in dealing with “Complex” requests. And all 21 agencies that processed requests in the “Complex” category said they missed the 20-day statutory response deadline for at least half of the requests processed.

Those who file administrative appeals are usually out of luck. Even more so in 2007. However, a majority of the agencies did say “no” more quickly. In 2007, the percentage of appeals granted dropped to the lowest level in 10 years. Only 13% of those who appealed got any satisfaction. Of those who appealed, only 3% got all the records requested; another 10% received a partial grant.

In its report, the Justice Department noted at one point that the executive order challenged agencies to deal with the severe backlog of unprocessed requests in a manner “consistent with available resources.” The CJOG study shows that FOIA spending at the 25 agencies studied fell by $7 million to $233.8 million and the agencies put 209 fewer people to work processing FOIA requests.

A few agencies did manage to find additional resources, but most did what they did with less. For instance, Homeland Security, despite a 20% reduction in FOIA personnel, processed 23,000 more requests in 2007, a 21% increase.

The rose-colored Justice report said in boldface that an increase in the number of “incoming requests” challenged agencies on backlog reduction, but that statement is dependent on counting the combination FOIA-Privacy Act requests made to Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration by individuals seeking personal records. Those agencies have historically handled those requests quickly, with little or no backlog.

The troubled agencies, whose performance prompted the executive order, experienced a significant drop in requests in 2007, a fact ignored by Justice. The 25 agencies in the CJOG study — all of the departments except HHS, plus 12 agencies handling at least 1,000 FOIA requests a year — experienced a 13 percent drop in requests, from 494,270 in 2006 o 431,170 last year.

The Justice report also gives credit in some places where it isn’t due. In citing specific agencies for “improvements in the area of backlog reduction” it named Agriculture, Education, and Labor. Whatever gains they made, it wasn’t in actually reducing their percentage backlog. Indeed, Education and Labor showed both a numerical and percentage gain.

The CJOG study, including a variety of tables showing both full 2007 results and comparisons by reporting categories, can be found at www.cjog.net .


FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Pete Weitzel, Coordinator
pweitzel@cjog.net

A Great Idea: Grade the Public Notices!

My buddy Joel Campbell out in Utah is involved in a great new project: grading the notice given under the state's open meetings law by local governments. This is a wonderful idea, and one that could easily be reproduced out there (hint, hint)...

A snippet:

When controversy hits in Utah Valley, municipal leaders often hear a singular message from affected residents -- we were not given important information when we needed it.

Razing ancient cedars or building a Wal-Mart feet from homes in Cedar Hills, expanding a sewer lagoon or approving huge housing developments in Santaquin, proposing itinerate housing in Payson, looking to quadruple impact fees or OK a gravel pit in Saratoga Springs, building a freeway in Lehi or a charter school on a residential street in Alpine, local residents have repeatedly expressed frustration with city employees and elected leaders who are supposed to protect their interests.

Because residents in cities across Utah Valley have decried for years the way cities communicate information that affects their lives, the Daily Herald recently collected -- or in some cases, attempted to collect -- meeting agendas and asked two experts to judge them, assigning each a letter grade based on how well cities had communicated to the public the business of the community.

To residents, the consequences of local decisions are real, and sometimes devastating. Eagle Mountain officials admitted recently that had they acted earlier, it would not have been necessary to condemn the front yards of four residents to build a 90-foot-tall power line. But that was little comfort to residents who wept in protest, or to Cedar Hills homeowners who will find themselves living feet from a Wal-Mart when construction begins in the spring, all of whom told city leaders they were not given information about the projects early enough.

Public information on the activities of planning commissions and city councils varies widely across Utah Valley. Some cities provide agendas with extremely minimal information, stating only that "recreation" or undefined jargon terms such as "CDBG" will be discussed, as a recent agenda in Goshen stated, or simply "airport loan" or "center for the arts" listed on a recent Provo agenda. Such opaqueness makes it difficult for residents to know not only how elected officials are spending taxpayer money, but also how city actions may affect residents.

Other cities are much more transparent. Eagle Mountain and Orem both regularly provide agendas reaching 10 pages or more, containing detailed explanations making it easier for residents to know at a glance where money is being spent and on-the-ground consequences of city actions. Most, if not all, cities provide extremely detailed packets of information -- sometimes numbering 100 pages or more -- regarding the agendas to their city leaders, but have sometimes charged the public and media fees to get the same information. Other cities post these packets on their Web sites for free public access.

More here.

A New Study Finds Greater Transparency in States

From Rebecca Carr of Cox Newspapers comes word of a new study...

While government secrecy rises at the federal level, a new study indicates that the states are becoming more transparent.

But the study, conducted by Washington-based Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, found that states are taking advantage of the internet to inform the public.

“The internet makes possible an unprecedented level of government transparency and public participation,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First. “But many states have been slow to adopt vigorous online disclosure, especially with respect to economic development subsidies.”

Check out your state here.

Some 27 states and the District of Columbia still provide no systematic online subsidy disclosure, according to the study.