Consultation with "Report Card" Departments
Thursday, 30 November and Monday, 18 December 2000

Consultation Highlights

Introduction

The Information Commissioner, in highlighting the problem of delay complaints, has conducted studies of delays in response times in several major government departments. Since 1998/99, he has issued "report cards" to these institutions, adopting as the measure of performance, the percentage of access requests which have become "deemed refusals" under subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act. This performance measure counts cases that have missed either the 30-day deadline or any extension of the deadline claimed by the departments.

The purpose of this consultation was to meet with the departments who have received "report cards" from the Information Commissioner in order to learn about the key issues they needed to address in order to improve their rate of compliance with the timelines established in the Access to Information Act, and to discuss their solutions and lessons learned that could be applied to the wider ATIP community.

Two meetings were held with the "report card" departments on November 30 and December 18, 2000. The following notes are not minutes of these meetings, but are a synopsis of the highlights of both meetings in point form, arranged under three main topics and series of sub-topics. The three main topics are: A) Reasons for missed deadlines, B) Solutions and C) Other issues.

Top of Page

Participants (8)

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Citizenship and Immigration
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Health Canada
Human Resources and Development Canada
National Defence
Privy Council Office
Transport Canada

A) Reasons for missed deadlines

1) Inadequate resources:

• This is a major issue both in the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Offices as well as in the Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs) where the records are held - when OPIs are short on resources retrieval of documents takes longer;
• During 96-97, resources in many departments were amputated by one third;
• Since then, some resources have been restored but not to the extent necessary to raise performance to "A" levels in a sustainable way;
• The recent public service employee survey identified excessively high workloads as the number one reason for low employee morale in several departments, for which solutions are still being sought;
• In ATIP Offices that are responsible for both privacy and access, an imbalance in resources may at peak times occur between the two - this tends to be a recurring and acute problem where personal case files are the department's main business, engendering high volumes of privacy requests as well as access requests;
• Sustainability is a serious concern when the increase in volume has been staggering.

2) Decentralized organizational structures:

• Some departments are spread across the country and others have foreign locations, making it difficult to locate and retrieve documents from these areas;
• If documents are located in regional offices, outposts abroad or on ships at sea they often cannot be retrieved within the 30-day response time despite the department's best efforts.
• Experiments in decentralizing ATIP functions to regional offices are taking place; such attempts appear to have more success on the privacy side rather than the access side as it has proved easier to bring privacy to the local level as a basic client service when the personal files are located in the regional office.

3) Need for extended consultations:

• The added challenge of having to consult on records with foreign governments has a major impact on response times;
• Because many issues now require government departments to work in partnership with one another, inter-institutional consultations are increasing in frequency, requiring the appropriate extensions;
• The simple letter grade assigned by the Information Commissioner (IC) does not capture the fact that a significant percentage of records requested are released, nor does it consider appropriate applications of the Act or the need to conduct consultations on the documents;
• requests are considered non-compliant by the IC even if only a few documents out of an otherwise completed request are held back for reasons of unavoidable delays due to need to consult internally with offices across the country or abroad, with foreign governments and with other federal government departments; moreover, the letter grade assigned by the IC does not assess whether the departments correctly applied the Act and the permissible exemptions.

4) Departmental context:

• Some departments operate in a context where risk must be minimized because of the nature of their mandate to protect the public; responsibility for public safety leads to creation of stringent checks and balances intended to reduce risk in responding to life and death situations; this outlook spills over into other operations, including responding to access requests;
• Therefore in some cases the sign-off procedures follow a path of multiple layers of review and are therefore complex and time-consuming;
• In such environments, access requests have a difficult time in taking priority over issues of public safety;
• In addition, other competing legal requirements have to be met by the departments;
• Several of the departments indicated they keep detailed processing statistics, sometimes even by organizational group and by region;
• However, dramatic improvement is unlikely to be achieved in the near future where the sign-off processes are complex and checks and balances are instituted for reasons of ensuring public safety;
• Communications assessments on sensitive and high-profile requests were sometimes found to be time-consuming;
• Some requests may be identified as being of interest to a Minister's Office, requiring such requests to be pushed through a number of steps and layers in the organization.

5) Substantial backlogs:

• Substantial backlogs are caused by high volumes of incoming requests together with insufficient resources to handle them;
• When a large number of requests is received within a short space of time, often on the same day, ATIP Offices are in a situation where they must react but with additional resources being outside their control;
• The nature of the work is necessarily reactive with sudden spikes in workload being impossible to anticipate;
• All participants successfully eliminated their backlogged requests following an influx of new (mostly temporary) resources;
• Participants identified that up-front negotiation with requesters often works well in shortening response times- some requesters may agree to accept records at an "as they are" stage;

6) Voluminous, "bulk" , "serial" and "commercial" requests:

• Some extremely large requests can throw off the best plans, placing pressure on the staff of the ATIP Office to strive to provide equitable service for all the other requests at hand;
• Voluminous, complex requests require more time for identification and retrieval of documents, review and severance than do requests involving less extensive documentation;
• ATIP offices sometimes waive fees for search and preparation time if responses are unexpectedly delayed;
• Businesses are frequent users of the Act, often requesting information about competing companies; compared with businesses, individual requesters appear to be fewer in number;
• Some businesses are at times perceived as using the access law as a "cheap research service";
• A relatively small number of repeat requesters sometimes generate a disproportionate number of complaints;
• The use of the access law by business should be flagged as an issue for further investigation.

7) Poor records management practices:

• Document retrieval can take much effort if records management is not in an exemplary state;
• ATIP Offices need to know what information the department has, where it is located regardless of its physical form, and what the approved retention and disposal schedules are for various types of information;
• Offices in charge of records management need to be adequately resourced and appropriate staff hired and trained.

Top of Page

B) Solutions

1) Additional resources:

• Additional resources was identified as the most important solution to ensure success;
• One successful measure was the development of an estimate of how many person-days were required to complete each request and the creation of a monthly schedule which were then presented to the Deputy who gave the ATIP Office authority to go to the OPIs to get the job done as well as substantial additional resources to hire contract help to clear the backlog;
• The project stayed on schedule; frequent reports were made to the Deputy;
• A very high compliance rate on response time can be achieved with the help of measures such as the above;
• Departments often hire outside contractors to clear backlogs, either through standing offer or through personal service contracts; if restrictions are placed on the use of contractors, the ability of ATIP Offices to deal with backlogs and worload spikes could be negatively affected; moreover, the supply of qualified contractors is limited and not sufficient to meet demand;
• Some departments have had increases to their permanent staff complement following the development of a business case;
• There may be a possibility of resource requests being considered through the TBS Program Integrity Exercise;
• The ability of the ATIPFlow tracking system to track in detail workload increases was cited as a help in justifying and proving the need for additional resources.

2) Changes in processes:

• Each of the participants examined internal processes to streamline and eliminate unnecessary steps to increase efficiency;
• In one instance, the problem was identified several years ago, a consultant was brought in to review the process with the result that steps were streamlined and eliminated and model response letters were improved, e.g., an excellent "regret" letter for requesters;
• In another case, an "assessment phase" was instituted for each request which was required to be completed before processing could begin - this up-front planning speeded up processing; the assessment involved: estimating: the size of the request - volume of documents, how long it would take to process, the applicable fees, any time extensions required for large searches or consultations;
• Participants recommended the practice of making partial releases of documents before a request can be completed due to late consultation, before the statutory time is up;
• Mapping out the processes in big blocks of time has been found to be helpful;
• "Standards of service" for the ATIP Office and published on the internal web site can potentially lead to a more professional relationship between ATIP staff and OPIs by enabling systematic follow-ups and a BF system for OPI responses;
• Sign-off processes can be altered to reduce the number of approval levels to help speed up processing;
• Several participants considered the tasking instructions a key tool for interacting with OPIs; in one case tasking by internal e-mail is being introduced to speed up the process; in another case, a chart was added to the bottom of the tasking memo laying out the times to do the various steps which the OPIs have found helpful;
• In one instance, the "middle man" has been eliminated by sending the tasking memo directly to the record holder instead of the manager, while at the same time still keeping the manager informed;
• Slow internal mail service compounded delays in another instance, which was remedied by increasing the number of mail runs.

3) Measures for dealing with voluminous requests:

• In one instance, clerical support positions were created to help ATIP officers with logistics and follow-up with OPIs, as well as copying files in the offices of the OPIs to speed up large requests;
• "Scoping down" voluminous requests worked well in some instances, as did making partial releases a bit at a time;
• Attempts to re-focus requests if they are too broad has been found to work well, as well as calling the line divisions promptly and pushing the communications package on sensitive requests.

4) Leadership shown by Minister and Deputy Minister:

• Strong leadership and personal involvement by the executive management level was considered essential to success;
• Those ATIP Coordinators who are able to go directly to the DM if there is a problem in obtaining documents have found that extensions need only be taken for very large files that are physically impossible to move in the required turnaround time;
• In at least two cases, a convergence of events have focused the attention of senior levels on ATIP: the "report cards" came down at the same time that section 67.1 came out, and a series of high-profile events were taking place in Québec involving the resignations of a minister and a deputy minister over an improper privacy disclosure; this increased attention on ATIP resulted in additional resources being allocated and increased departmental visibility for the ATIP program, which has had a positive effect on ATIP compliance;
• Regular reports to senior management in several instances keep ATIP issues on the front burner;
• In one instance, regular reports on turnaround times in the OPIs are distributed at executive management meetings with the result that OPI compliance rates remain high; a "zero tolerance" policy on delays in turnaround times was instituted in another case with very strong support from senior management.

5) Training and awareness:

• Education of was considered essential to improving performance, particularly of program areas; every manager and employee must be made aware of his or her legal obligations under access and privacy;
• Several of the participants provide general awareness sessions to the line branches on what their responsibilities are;
• A departmental training advisory group was established in one instance to help with training/awareness sessions throughout the institution, with emphasis on the department's obligations under the Act; training is provided on request as well as on a published schedule across the country;
• In another case, training was given to 3000 self-identified employees who responded to a call letter;
• One Coordinator briefed every management group across the country as well as one quarter of the department's employees;
• In another instance, ATIP modules were designed and incorporated into departmental training programs for new officers, managers and heads of offices both in and outside of headquarters;
• Tasking instructions in several cases serve as a reminder to OPIs of their legal obligations and what they need to do;
• Participants recommended that every employee, new and old, be given instruction on the need for accountability and transparency as a public servant as it relates to managing their records and providing access to them.

6) Human resources/ATIP Offices:

• Any successful turnaround depends on finding and keeping good people in the ATIP Office;
• Recruitment at the entry level needs to be done systematically to replace anticipated retirees over the next 5 to 7 years;
• Participants agreed that ATIP managers need to select personnel with excellent generic skills and provide training specific to access and privacy;
• Career paths need to be considered in building the access community, leading both into and out of the ATIP field;
• Bridging programs leading out of the access field into broader areas need to be examined in order to attract bright new people into the field, such as policy areas in departments as well as a management track;
• Bridging the CR to PM gap was a key issue in one instance - this led to the development of a formal training plan and posting training information on the internal website;
• Participants identified burnout among ATIP officers and Coordinators as an issue.

7) Improved records management:

• In several instances, improvements in location and retrieval of electronic records were made by the adoption of RDIMS or similar records management software by the departments;
• Participants reiterated that more resources should be allocated for records management across government;
• Strong central leadership is required for government-wide reforms in records management; the recommendations in the "John McDonald report" should be implemented by the government.

Top of Page

C) Other issues

1) Requests that are parallel to court processes:

• One participant described an extremely large request involving over 1.2 million documents arising out of an on-going court process; to respond to this request a parallel ATIP unit employing 12 to 15 people was created and a 2-year extension was taken expiring in Jan. 2001;
• Parts of the same documentation had to be released for the "discovery" process in connection with a tribunal hearing that is still in progress-the final decision is expected in February; this request was wider in scope than the discovery, requiring extensive time for the sorting of the documents for relevancy as well as for the review under ATIP;
• In addition, 5 or 6 parallel requests have come in on the same subject from political parties and the media, involving the same documentation;
• Methodology is being used involved scanning and electronic severing;
• ATIPImage software is being used for scanning the documents - this is a module of the ATIPFlow tracking system; while ATIPImage was found to work well for requests involving less than 250,000 pages, it was not designed to handle such a large volume of records;
• Fees charged for this particular request are limited by the legislation to a minimal fee for search and to 0.20 per page for duplication. This fee in no way accurately reflects the cost of processing for the department, which in this case will be close to one million dollars.

2) Litigation involving case files containing personal information:

• In one instance, litigation involving case files containing personal information about individuals is increasing rapidly, in parallel to an exponential increase in access requests;
• This means that lawyers resort to the formal ATI process when they cannot obtain the case files fast enough through the regular informal channels;
• This department is considering a possible GOL project involving some aspect of this information in an effort to reduce the number of ATI requests.

3) ATIP Advice and policy development:

• Introduction of Bill C-6 has greatly increased attention to privacy policy issues;
• There is increasing demand for Coordinators to develop policy and provide advice on privacy issues related to GOL, an area that not all Coordinators are necessarily well equipped to handle if they normally have little involvement in the administration of the Privacy Act;
• Time is a factor; Coordinators being immersed in case processing and complaint management, are hard pressed to deal with other demanding issues.

4) Maintaining an ATIP web presence:

• Maintaining an internal and an external web presence was considered important for visibility and education purposes;
• Because it takes time and resources for an ATIP Office to create and maintain a web presence, specific resources with the appropriate specialization should be allocated for this function.

5) Fee management:

• Participants recommended that issues surrounding fees for voluminous requests and business requesters need to be addressed;
• Fees for documents that are processed and released electronically also need to be addressed.

6) Informal disclosure and proactive dissemination:

• Dedicated resources assigned to handling informal releases can expedite requests outside the Act;
• One of the participants provides a bilingual summary of the documents released on the departmental website in an effort to disseminate widely information about recent releases;
• Official Languages was identified as potentially being a barrier to electronic or virtual reading rooms if all documents posted need to be translated into the other official language; the costs of translating thousands of pages of documentation may prove to be a challenge;
• It was estimated in one case that the number of access requests would be reduced by 25% if certain information of particular interest to business were disclosed routinely by proactively posting it to the website;
• Participants strongly recommended that departments look strategically at their communications plans, identify the information that the general public wants and disclose it proactively through the Internet and other means;
• Possible pilot projects on proactive disclosure, designed to measure the impact on ATIP requests, would be beneficial; the issue of proactive severances will need to be addressed, along with official languages.

7) Focus of the Information Commissioner:

• The IC is focussed on delays, at the expense of other important issues such as content and quality of responses;
• The IC report does not consider consultations which are also growing in number as the complexity and number of requests grows;
• The IC's simple letter grade does not capture the fact that the vast majority of the records requested are released on time, and a very large proportion is released with few or no exemptions;
• Account should be taken of the existence of documents in decentralized offices and the difficulties this engenders in gathering documents located across the country or abroad, as well as access to the advice on sensitivity provided by decentralized line offices;
• Allowance should be given for more than one extension to be claimed if the situation warrants;
• When departments get constant negative attention from the IC, no credit for the correctness of application of the law or good quality of responses, nor for investing substantially increased resources into the process just to maintain compliance in the face of rising demand, a "fatigue factor" will predictably set in at senior management levels; in such circumstances ATIP can be seen as a "black hole" or bottomless pit for resources, which could result in resentment on the part of line branches;
• If the IC could be persuaded to refocus on broader issues, such as the ATIP community for example, the community as a whole could move in the best way for all.

8) Words of Wisdom:

• Participants identified five key measures for improving compliance: 1) getting rid of the backlog, 2) reviewing and streamlining internal processes including sign-offs, 3) making sure there are adequate resources for the normal workload, 4) having standing offers in place to hire contractual help to deal with workload spikes, and 5) maintaining the attention and support of senior management;
• Departments should not wait until they get a "report card" to review their processes, measure throughout, identify problems and take remedial action; it is difficult to recover the department's reputation once it gets tagged with the "secrecy brush" and improvements should be made as soon as problems are identified;
• Solidly trained and developed groups of ATIP officers should be deployed to the response process; ATIP positions should be permanently staffed;
• Performance reviews of the OPIs should be considered with regard to ATIP compliance
• ATIP processing should shift from only applying the Act to more of a management and process-oriented focus; this requires a different skill set on the part of ATIP supervisors who are becoming more involved in the monitoring aspects of the work; more sophisticated monitoring is made possible by means of tracking systems such as ATIPFlow, which enables closer monitoring of the status of requests as well as the performance of ATIP offices.

Top of Page

Consultation