DOJ Proudly Trumpets Its Completely BS 91% FOIA Response Rate
from the transparency-through-statistical-manipulation dept
Lies, damned lies, and the DOJ's FOIA fulfillment rate.
Tom Susman, a member of the FOIA Advisory Committee, emailed the heads of the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) and Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) on the discrepancy between the misleading 91 percent FOIA release rate commonly cited by OIP – and repeated by the rest of the government – and the more accurate release rate calculated by the Archive and others of between 50 and 60 percent.
The only entity that believes the DOJ has fulfilled 9 out of 10 FOIA requests is the DOJ. Anyone on the receiving end of its "responses" finds this number laughable.
First off, the DOJ's apparently including the thousands of requests it fulfills years after they've been requested. It's also including partial responses. And its hit rate is greatly padded by "releases" in which nothing was actually released.
[M]y experience has been that including released in part in the overall “disclosure rate” is likely to be very deceptive. In one recent example from the Department of Education, the agency “released” 200 pages of documents to a FOIA requester, only two of which were not totally redacted, and those two were correspondence from the requester. This, of course, would be counted as “released” under the 91 percent tally, but not in my universe.
Also likely included in the DOJ's inflated sense of self-worth:
- Fulfillments where "no responsive documents can be found," even when it's clear there are documents to be found
- Responses where the DOJ has claimed it can't find documents it has already released publicly
- Responses where the DOJ has been forced to turn over documents by court decisions
The number released by the DOJ is just plain dishonest. It gives the "most transparent administration" a win it clearly hasn't earned and misrepresents the FOIA experience to the general public. It gives the DOJ something to further ward off FOIA reform attempts and implies that those who do complain about its general unresponsiveness are probably blowing things out of proportion.
As Lauren Harper of Unredacted points out, the touting of this bogus success rate only makes it less likely the federal government will seriously address its constant FOIA shortcomings.
When the White House, DOJ, or others cite a 91 percent “success statistic” their aim is to present a view to the public that FOIA is working 91 percent of the time. Anyone that has looked at the stats – including the blanket denials, redactions, decades long waits – or has filed a FOIA request, knows that this “statistic” is far from the truth. A better track for the administration would be to candidly acknowledge the problems facing FOIA and work openly to fix them.
Let's face it: the DOJ isn't going to change until forced to -- "presumption of disclosure" or not. This administration has done almost nothing to push for greater transparency and neither of the incoming presidential candidates -- Hillary "Homebrew" Clinton or Donald "I Can Make My Own Laws, Right?" Trump -- are likely to have a positive effect on government accountability going forward.
Certainly, there are still legislators who are pushing for better transparency, but they're stymied by powerful agencies like the DOJ -- and, often, the administration itself. The DOJ presides over agencies which have done everything but order a hit on prolific FOIA requesters like Jason Leopold. And, while the move towards a "release to one, release to all" policy on FOIA responses is better for the public in general, it's also likely intended to discourage journalists from chasing down obscure government secrets by removing the possibility of "scooping" competitors.
The worst part is the DOJ likely doesn't care whether the general public believes its inflated response numbers. Like far too many federal agencies, it has long since shrugged off any pretense of acting in the public's interest. Its "91%" whitewash of its FOIA responsiveness covers up a 50-60% response rate -- one that's likely good enough for government work. Especially the sort of work few in the government show any interest in performing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, foia, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Grow up, Mr Comey!
Remember THIS? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160906/17042035450/fbi-wants-to-hire-young-tech-savants-has-no-i dea-how-to-attract-them.shtml
All those young tech savants are turned off by these "misrepresentations" about how you respond to FOIA requests!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the technicalities dept. :
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the technicalities dept. :
No. That is the "we have not yet had a chance to respond" category. Some requests may be in here for decades, but rest-assured, when we do respond we will include them in these numbers - but not before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare a car thief to a bankster.
$100,000 car thief ought get a day in jail and 10 cent fine, when you compare to the bankster's deals. Yet with Wells Fargo what do we have again 3 felonies for 5200 employees, all who mauled us with SAR's (Suspicious Activity Report) for moving our money around. Yeah so the FRAUD called SAR, is nullified right? Right? How about the NON terrorists who got their lives screwed over that FRAUD LAW!?
No WF can't raise their fees to pay for it all. SEIZE it from the damn CEO. Render that damn company.
What with the SOROS money fraud, any SAR's catch that slush money? NO?
So if hillary hypothetically dies (satan inside TM) turning into a bleeding hamburger from the inside out does the prosecutors just stop looking at her TREASON?!!!
OH my god...
I served freaking 30 + years ago, I think the CURRENT head of security need a SECURITY CLEARANCE AUDIT themselves. with the partying Secret Service and all this FBI crap, the embracing of a death cult. Yeah time to AUDIT you fuckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if the goal post is "the request totally matched everything the person asked for without any redaction", then the 7% figure is quite reasonable. Almost every document will have redactions (such as who wrote it, inspectors or officers involved, etc). Thus the partial count is very high.
If you think 90% is high, perhaps you should just figure out what the goal posts are, rather than complaining that they don't match up to your desire for complete data dumping on request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll leave that here.
America has to choose between the bad and the worse.
It was funny though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]