Report 29 - Access to Information Review Task Force

NEW REPORTING FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION PROGRAM

Appendix A - Terms of Reference

Research Project - Use of Statistics in Access to Information

Background:
The Access to Information Review Task Force is in the process of conducting an administrative and legislative review of Access to Information in the federal government. Recommendations will identify areas of improvement for the government.

During the course of its work the Task Force has determined that there are weaknesses in the identification, gathering and use of performance information related to ATI. The Task Force would like to identify an alternative approach to performance information that better serves the community, provides a better understanding of the ATI program and supports improved reporting to Parliament.

Objectives of the Research project:
The research paper should evaluate the current system of measurement and reporting and identify potential improvements. Ideally the research work will result in the development of recommendations for an overarching framework for performance reporting that accommodates the different informational needs of departments, TBS and the Information Commissioner and which provides relevant information to Parliamentarians. Although each may have different requirements for data, there should be agreement on fundamental principles behind the framework. This framework should result in better information being made available, which will in turn lead to a better understanding of the access program - its progress, challenges and failings - by all parties. The framework should also provide information to enable monitoring and continual improvement of the access systems and processes.

The research paper should also touch on the implications for generating information that can be used over time for longitudinal information and against benchmarks (both internal and in other jurisdictions) that would be appropriate to support further reviews of the Act and its administration.

What we expect to see in the report:

• A formal analysis of the current data collected and the use of that data - strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, gaps in terms of its validity and usefulness.
• A brief discussion of the needs for good reporting and the consequences of not having an effective system in place.
• Identification of barriers to the collection and reporting of effective performance information related to access.
• Analysis of other data available and the potential utility in assessing performance of the system.
• Recommendations for a new reporting framework (that includes identifying responsibilities) that are practical and able to withstand the scrutiny of critics.
• Recommendations of areas for further study by policy centres.
  
  

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix B - Documents and/or Web sites Reviewed

1. ATI Consolidated Act
2. Info Source - On line
3. Information Commissioner reports - Hard Copy
4. Alasdair Roberts' report and website
5. Task Force Notes on ATIP statistics
6. CAC Cost study report
7. Comments from consultations:

• PPF final report p. 25 (30 days turnaround), p. 28 (resolution of complaints), p. 30 (IC tracking), p. 62 (quote from participant), 65 (repetitive requesters), 71 (redress).
• Summary notes from Public service Consultations (see photocopy)

8. Comments from compendium of past recommendations: p. 36 (annual reports), 40-42 (facilitating access).

9. Comments from submissions to date: p. 18 (% late & reasons), p.24 (costs) of synopsis
10. Other Jurisdictions Reports:

• USA - report & website
• Australia
• Ireland
• Ontario
• Manitoba
• Alberta
• British Columbia
• Quebec

11. OIC Report Cards

• CIC
• DFAIT

12. Annual Reports to Parliament

• DFAIT
• CIC
• DND
• INAC
• HRDC

13. ATIP Guidelines: DIAND January 31, 2000
14. Consultation with "Report Card" Departments, Thursday, 30 November and Monday, 18 December 2000
15. Access to Information Co-ordinators, October 19, 2000
16. Information Commissioner of Canada
17. Privacy Commissioner of Canada
18. Treasury Board of Canada
19. Justice Canada's Annotated Access and Privacy Acts
20. Sysanova Management Consulting Ltd.
21. MRPsys Inc - Creators of the ATIPflow database and ATIPimage system
22. British Columbia's Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner:
23. Alberta's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
24. Manitoba's Access and Privacy Directory
25. Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner
26. Quebec's Information and Privacy Commissioner
27. Nova Scotia's NovaSource
28. Canadian Access and Privacy Association
29. Task Force

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix C - Interview Guides

Review of Statistical Performance Indicators on Access to Information

Interview Guide for Departments:

1. Please describe the Access to Information process in your department in terms of:

• What are your organizational structure and your overall procedures for ATI?
• Characteristics of the work - volume and nature of requests? Profile of requestors?
• What statistics are you currently tracking, and for what purpose? What systems are you using to track these stats?
• What in your view are the strengths and weaknesses of these stats?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the statistics collected and published by the office of the Information Commissioner and the Treasury Board Secretariat?
• Do the statistics now in the public domain tell an adequate story on the access performance of government/your department?

2. What are your measures of performance?

• Please describe what indicators you use to track and measure performance? Rationale?
• What are the barriers to the collection and reporting of performance information?

3. What reports do you provide:

• To departmental management?
• To the Information Commissioner?
• To Treasury Board Secretariat?
• To Parliament?
• Others?

4. How easy are they to produce? What do they do with reports?

5. What additions or deletions in information collected and/or reported is required?

6. In your view what other issues are there with respect to ATI tracking and reporting, departmentally? Government-wide?

Review of Statistical Performance Indicators on Access to Information

Interview Guide for Office of the Information Commissioner:

1. Access to Information processes and statistics:

• What do you see as the purpose of the Act? What are the government's (i.e. departments') obligations? What are the OIC's obligations?
• What is your organizational structure and overall procedures for reviewing ATI complaints?
• Characteristics of the work - volume and nature of complaints?
• What statistics are you currently tracking, and for what purpose? What systems are you using to track these stats? What is the source of your information?
• What are the key results that you are trying to achieve?
• What in your view are the strengths and weaknesses of these stats?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the statistics collected and published by the TBS / departments?
• How is your information linked to the TBS info? How should it be linked?

2. Performance Measurement?

• How do you measure a department's performance with regards to ATI?
• Do the statistics now in the public domain tell an adequate story on the access performance of government/your department?
• Suggestions for improvement?
• Are there any barriers to the collection and reporting of performance information?

3. What reports do you provide:

• To departmental management?
• To Treasury Board Secretariat?
• To Parliament?
• Others?

4. How easy/difficult are these reports to produce? What do the recipients do with the reports?

5. What additions or deletions in information collected and/or reported is required?

6. In your view what other issues are there with respect to ATI tracking and reporting, departmentally? Government-wide?

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix D - List of Interviewees

Sylvie Chaput-Saumis
Chief of Operations. ATIP Office
HRDC

Tom Makichuk
Senior Administrator of Policy Unit. ATIP Office
HRDC

François Arsenault
Corporate Secretary, President's Office
CIDA

Sylvain Leblanc
Advisor - ATIP Office
CIDA

Diane Burrows
Director - ATIP Office
Citizenship & Immigration

Anne Brennan
Director - Information and Security Policy Division
Treasury Board Secretariat

Judith Mooney
Director - ATIP Office
National Defence

Barbara Kirk
Director General
Corporate Services Directorate
CCRA

Alan Leadbeater
Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Information Commissioner

Dan Dupuis
Director General, Investigations and Reviews
Office of the Information Commissioner

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix E - Office of the Information Commissioner
Suggested Reporting Format

A: Requestor Profile:
Individual
Media
MP/Senator
Researcher
Public Interest Organization
Business
Other (specify)

B: Content Profile
Request categorized by content categories relating to departmental business lines and request patterns.

Policy
Adm/Pers/Fin
Contracts
Grants/Contributions
Regulatory Filings
Operational

C: Processing Times Profile (30 Days)

i) Processing Stages:

Intake
Tasking/Review - Search - OPI
Communications
Review - Decision - ATIP Unit
Approval

OPI
DM
MO

Final Processing

ii) Standards:

Total # of requests
Days elapsed at each stage
Actual # of search and preparation hours
Total days elapsed
# in deemed refusal
Duration of deemed refusal
# extended and duration of extension

D: Extensions Profile

9(1)(a) - Volume (pages)
- OPI's

9(1)(b) - Other institutions
- Other gov't - Foreign
-Domestic
- Individual
- Section 69
- Other - specifics

9(1)(c) - 20 days (Reps - Third Party)
- 30 days (from date of receipt of Notice)

E: Disclosure/Application of Exemptions

Mandatory:
13(1)(a), etc. [] Number

Discretionary:
21(1)(a), etc. [] Number

% of requested info disclosed

100
75
30
25
0

- Pages disclosed in total
- Pages Partial
- Pages withheld in total

F: Costs and Fee Profile:

i) Policy <Yes> <No>

- collection
- waiver
- refund

A - Number of Requests seeking fee waiver
B - Source
C - Amount of fees waived (re. A)
Amount of fees assessed

o Photocopy
o Preparation
o Programming

Deposit sought
Deposit paid
Fees refunded

ii) Total fees collected

o photocopy
o secret and preparation
o programming
Total fees waived
Total salary costs (ATIP)
Total O&M costs (ATIP)
Total operational costs (based on search hours)
Other auditable criteria

G: Communication with Requestor Profile

Clarification (Section 6) and requester response (elapsed days from receipt)

Fee estimate and requester response (elapsed days from receipt)

Other (elapsed days from receipt)
Purpose

H: Form of Response Profile

Response by copies
Response by viewing
Requester abandon

I: Transfer Profile

Number [] Within 15 days

Number [] Refused

Return to Table of Contents