Annual Report: 2003-2004

Status report on access requests in a deemed-refusal situation

l. BACKGROUND

For several years, a number of institutions were subject to review because of evidence of chronic difficult in meeting response deadlines. In his 1996-97 Annual Report to Parliament, the former information commissioner reported that delays in responding to access requests had reached crisis proportions.

As a result, the Information Commissioner has adopted the following standard as being the best measure of a department’s compliance with response deadlines: percentage of requests received which end as deemed refusals. Every department reviewed has been assessed against the following grading standard:

Initially, six institutions were the focus of this review, with six having since been added, including Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). This, then, is a report of the review of Human Resources Development Canada’s performance for the period April 1 to November 30, 2003.

This Status Report reviews the continued progress of the department to maintain substantial compliance with the time requirements of the Access to Information Act since the previous report. In addition, this report contains information on the status of the recommendations made in the Status Report of January 2003.

2. COMPLIANCE HISTORY

Human Resources Development Canada was the first department to achieve a grade of "A" in its initial Report Card. In January 2000, HRDC reported that all access requests completed between April 1 and November 1, 1999, were processed within the time requirements of the Access to Information Act. At that time, the department had in their words a "zero tolerance policy" for access requests in a deemed-refusal situation.

In fiscal year 2000-2001, two events created an extraordinary volume of access and privacy requests. A Grants and Contributions Audit Report generated a large volume of access requests. From a typical volume of approximately 450 requests, 1,443 access requests were processed. In addition, events around the Longitudinal Files generated some 70,000 privacy requests. The volume of requests overwhelmed the department’s access process and the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate. At one point, 150 additional employees were working in two shifts to process requests.

In fiscal year 2000-2001, the new request to deemed-refusal ratio was 53.4%. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the ratio was 39.5%. In each of these fiscal years, the ratio represented a grade of "F".

One response to the high volume of requests and processing time constraints was the creation of a Review Committee to ensure that the information to be disclosed for an access request was consistent with the information requested. Each request was reviewed as part of the access process but independent from the ATIP Directorate for what ended up to be essentially a communications review. The added review resulted in delays to the access process and access requests in a deemed-refusal situation. Recently, the review group–the Analysis Unit–was relocated to the ATIP Directorate.

April 1 to November 30, 2002, saw HRDC receive a grade of "D", for a new request to deemed-refusal ratio of 19.7%. This was an improvement from the grade of "F" for the new request to deemed-refusal ratio for the previous two fiscal years. However, for the full fiscal year, that grading once again sank to a ratio of 32.7% or a grade of "F".

3. CURRENT STATUS

The department continues to struggle in attaining an acceptable standard for the deemed-refusal ratio. The new request to deemed-refusal ratio remains at 39.2% for the period from April 1 to November 30, 2003, for a grade of "F".

This gives an accurate assessment of the deemed-refusal ratio to requests received within the above-noted reporting period; however, it does not take into consideration those requests carried over from the previous year, nor the number of requests already in a deemed-refusal status on April 1. In future reports, these figures will be taken into consideration; however, for this report, the grading resulting from that inclusion is provided for information purposes only. In this instance, the ratio of deemed refusals from April 1 to November 30, 2003, would be 40.2%, still a grade of "F".

During the course of the interview, the Director cited a number of activities over the past year that adversely affected the Division’s performance.

• 2003 saw a major reorganization take place in HRDC. A department-wide Corporate Services review resulted in a number of divisions being realigned and restructured, including the Access to Information Division. This reorganization also realigned regional units, affecting timely OPI identification. This was particularly troublesome where responsibilities moved to regional divisions without the transfer of personnel. A considerable amount of training had to take place resulting in a slowdown of services and responses.
   
• The volume of requests in concert with the transition, and the fact that many of these requests were very complex in nature involving a large number of pages, impacted negatively on the overall process in meeting timeframes. The number of pages reviewed during the reporting period (April 1 to November 30) was approximately twice as much as in each of the two previous years for the same period. There are 33 FTE’s administering both Access and Privacy Acts.

While the transition has resulted in some disruption to the ATIP operation, some aspects have had a positive effect as noted below:

• The ATIP Division was moved under the responsibility of Communications. This move had positive effects on the access process as the ADM responsible for Legislative Requirements now also had the responsibility for Communications, leading to an increased promotion of the ATI Act, a streamlining of the process, and a decrease in the need for communications activities.

The workload and resulting deemed-refusals results is depicted in the following charts:

4. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

Notwithstanding the internal issues, ongoing Federal Government restructuring involving HRDC and other departments will necessitate a considerable realignment of functions and responsibilities. What impact this will have on HRDC’s ability to improve its performance in the new fiscal year is only speculative at best.

However, recognizing the necessity to monitor performance, the division has continually reviewed its workload. While there had been fairly consistent improvement in response times, the third-quarter of the past year saw a decline associated with the transition. To bring the newly appointed OPIs and their liaison staff up to a level of understanding, a one-week in house ATIP training program has been put in place.

It should be noted that HRDC no longer exists. On December 12, 2003, HRDC was divided into two departments: Social Development Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. This has lead to the ATIP Directorate being divided into two distinct entities, one for each department. Further, the Analysis Section of the former HRDC ATIP Directorate has been integrated into the Operations Section for each department. This integration, the quarterly oversight report, as well as the Directorate’s continuous success in streamlining the process to remove sign-offs in several instances, should contribute to increase compliance with the time limits established in the Act by both departments.

A number of other initiatives have or are being introduced, including:

• a dynamic tracking system for regional and executive heads
• the development of guidelines regarding the collecting of records appropriate to a request, as well as clarification on analyzing requests, and OPIs roles and responsibilities
• improved assistance by the ATIP staff for OPIs in their role in review and recommendations.

Each ADM has an ATIP liaison staff member. A meeting is held every two weeks to follow-up active requests in addition to the oversight report. Additional reports have been initiated to identify ADM level responsibilities in relation to requests including a performance review in responding to taskings, ATIP process performance and time spent in follow-up approval.

In light of the fact that 37% of completed requests without extensions did not meet the time requirements of the Act, some review of the process must be instituted whereby better control is maintained of the timely processing of requests. The recommendation made last year must be made again.

Further training is planned on an annual basis whereby ATIP staff will be going out to regions as well as providing regular in-house training for new OPIs, their staff, contacts and managers.

5. 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS

As part of this report, the recommendations in the January 2003 Report were reviewed to determine their status. Action taken on the previous recommendation follows the text of the recommendation.

Action Taken: The action plan has been submitted to Senior Management focusing on timelines in anticipation of improved performance for the 2004-2005 timeframe, which incorporates the following:

• The oversight report
• ADM originated lateral guidelines on responsibilities and roles to all other ADMs and regions
• Additional training
• ATIP liaison officers response sheet introduced to ensure consistency and clarify status on records at issue.

Action Taken: The Delegation Authority has been amended to remove redundancies and streamline the process including the removal of the sign-off process in several instances.

Action Taken: A review has been conducted of the two functions of the ATIP unit. This review did not identify any major duplication but did improve the process for identification of those types of requests requiring briefings, etc., to management while fast-tracking routine requests.

Action Taken: Lists of Grants and Contributions are now being placed on the Internet after an ATIP review, on a routine basis. Additional records include audits, evaluations, call-ups, manuals and guidelines; these are now available to the public. This is continually being reviewed for additional informal releases. This has had a twofold benefit: reducing numerous routine requests of the past while the requests that are now coming in are very focused and specific and less time-consuming to identify and task.

Action Taken: Quarterly oversight reports have been introduced to highlight divisional and regional performance in response times and processing.

6. QUESTIONNAIRE AND STATISTICAL REPORT

EXCERPT FROM DEPUTY MINISTER’S (HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CANADA) RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT

"I appreciate your indicating that the department has taken action on all your recommendations from last year. In addition, as acknowledged in the report card, HRDC underwent major reorganizations and the workload in the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate was considerable last year in comparison with the previous two. Your understanding and support in this matter is valued.

We believe that your current recommendations, in addition to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s evolving improvement plan, including the establishment of the zero-tolerance policy for late responses, will have a beneficial impact on my department’s compliance with the response deadlines."

EXCERPT FROM DEPUTY MINISTER’S (SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA) RESPONSE TO STATUS REPORT

"I appreciate your indicating that the Department has taken action on all your recommendations from last year. In addition, as acknowledged in the report card, HRDC underwent major reorganization and the workload in the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate was considerable last year in comparison with the two previous ones.

We believe that your current recommendations, in addition to Social Development Canada’s (SDC) commitment to handle requests diligently, including the establishment of a zero-tolerance policy for late responses will have a beneficial impact on my Department’s compliance with the response deadlines.

In closing, I wish to take this opportunity to express that Social Development Canada takes this matter very seriously."