The Impact of the UK Freedom of Information Act on Records Management in the Public Sector s1

The impact of the UK Freedom of Information Act on records management in the public sector

AGENDA ITEM 4a: Background. AHRC case for support

Research questions

The central research question is: what has the impact of the UK Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 been on records management services in public authorities?

In answering this question, four specific research objectives will be examined:

1. how well records management services prepared for and coped with the first three years of FOI implementation 2. what contribution records management services make to the ability of public authorities to comply with the FOI Act 3. how the user experience of FOI is affected by the management of records 4. what the implications are of FOI so far for good practice in records management.

The research will seek to discover the impact of FOI and its link with records management from three perspectives: 1. records managers 2. institutional FOI policy managers 3. FOI requesters and user communities and to demonstrate how each group contributes to and benefits from the inter-relationship between records management and FOI. It will also identify examples of good practice which can be shared within the records management and public sector communities and will disseminate theoretical and policy findings to the professional, academic and public policy communities through publication.

Research context

The UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force in January 2005. The Act imposes significant duties and responsibilities on public authorities to give access to information. To achieve this, public authorities need to know what information they hold, manage and retrieve information effectively, deal expeditiously (within 20 days) with FOI requests, and disseminate information through a publication scheme. As was made clear in the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the management of records (DCA, 2002) published in compliance with FOIA (s 46), effective records management enables authorities to meet these obligations and underpins FOI. Together with Data Protection Act 1998 and Modernising Government agenda, FOI is a significant part of the wider government agenda to increase openness, transparency, trust and accountability in the public sector. The impact of information policy and freedom of information on public services and the effectiveness of public authorities in meeting their obligations are significant factors in the accountability of government to its citizens and of concern to all.

In 2006, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (UK Parliament, 2006) concluded that ‘the FOI Act has already brought about the release of significant new information and that this information is being used in a constructive and positive way by a range of different individuals and organisations.’ The Information Commissioner (IC) reported that ‘the Freedom of Information Act really has made a significant impact across the whole of the public sector’ and that ‘there have been real benefits for the users’ (UK Parliament, 2006). He also reported widespread awareness among public authorities of the Act (98%) and a positive attitude to FOI (81%). Many public authorities made changes to facilitate compliance: 60% had changed their records systems (ICO, 2006). 83% believed that FOI had brought about improvements in records management, while 27% believed that better records management was a positive benefit of FOI (ICO, 2006). Bettiss and Holsen (2005) reported that FOI officers cited ‘figuring out whether their authority holds the information and, if so, where it is’ as one of the three most difficult issues when responding to FOI requests. A study of FOI in universities reported that the task which took longest when responding to an FOI request was ‘locating and accessing information’ (JISC, 2005). Recent high-profile decisions by the IC and Government consultation on reform of the Act, have sent out mixed signals about how FOI will evolve in future, but there is no doubt that compliance with FOI and effective management of information will be a central responsibility of public authorities towards citizens.

The Code of Practice for records management (DCA, 2002) is currently being reviewed by The National Archives (TNA). Model Action Plans assisted compliance with the Records Management Code. The IC agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with TNA under FOIA s 47. TNA published an evaluation workbook for public authorities to assess their level of compliance with the Code (TNA, 2006) and is developing a programme to assess the risks faced by government departments through failure to comply with the Code. Specialist publications (McDonald and Terrill, 1998, Smith, 2004, Flinn and Jones, 2007), seminars (Simpson, 2002, Chapman and Hunt, 2006, Northumbria University, 2006) and a weblog (Wood, 2006) have also appeared, dealing with FOI from the different perspectives of policy makers and compliance managers, information and records managers and users. Much of the existing research focuses on compliance with FOI, rather than on the management of records which underpin compliance. The proposed project would fill a gap and complement the work of other researchers.

The School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, at University College London (UCLSLAIS) has carried out several studies on preparedness for FOI. Screene (2005) assessed key aspects of preparedness in four case study organizations, revealing that they would achieve minimum preparedness by 2005, but there were significant weaknesses. A second study, in summer 2005 (Shepherd & Ennion, 2007) sought to discover, through four intensive case studies, how well prepared public sector bodies actually were for the first six months of FOI implementation. Sebina studied the nexus between freedom of information and records management in Southern Africa (Sebina in Flinn & Jones, 2007), which has lessons for the UK. Shepherd reported findings to the European DLM Forum in 2005 (Shepherd, 2005). Flinn has looked at the experience of academic users as well as contrasting experiences of FOI environments across the world (Flinn and Jones, 2007).

The proposed research project builds on the existing UCL studies, and on the work of UCL’s Constitution Unit and TNA, to provide a benchmark assessment of the impact of FOI on records management in local government, three years after full implementation of FOI. The outcome will be an improved understanding of the impact of FOI on the management of records in the UK public sector and the extent to which user needs for information are being satisfied. The research will be of value to public policy makers, records managers, FOI officers, administrators responsible for FOI compliance, information user communities and the associated academic disciplines.

Research methods

The research will focus on three distinct respondent groups: 1. records management services within public authorities This group will help us to answer research objective 1, how well records management services are coping with the demands of FOI and objective 4, identifying records management good practice. We will assess the extent to which records management systems complied with the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on records management, identify actions needed to ensure and extend future compliance, what the consequences and risks of preparedness and compliance (whether positive or negative) are for records management services and issues around records creation. 2. senior FOI policy managers In assessing the contribution of records management services to the effectiveness of public authorities in meeting the requirements of the FOI Act (objective 2), we will engage with public authorities at a higher policy level to identify areas where the ability of authorities to meet FOI performance targets was affected by good (or poor) records management, we will examine the assessment of the risks associated with non-compliance and whether the obligation to disclose information has changed the quality and candour of the records produced by authorities, and the links between effective records management, FOI compliance and accountability of public sector authorities. 3. FOI user communities We will study the user community experience of FOI and explore the extent to which that experience of FOI is affected by records management (objective 3), in particular for those seeking organizational information from corporate records. We will assess records-related outcomes of FOI for user communities, for example whether FOI has brought greater accountability, identifying specific positive benefits for users and whether any delays or failures in locating relevant records or providing information have reduced the effectiveness of FOI in providing accountability.

The project’s research sample: Since the FOI Act applies to over 115,000 public authorities, the project will only be able to undertake a detailed study of one part of the public sector in a limited geographical region in a timely fashion. The study of one part of the sector will not allow for generalisations across the public sector or nation-wide, but it will build rich data which can be compared with that for other sectoral studies (eg JISC, 2006). It will also provide a methodology for future similar studies. Weaknesses in the management of records by local authorities have been noted in high profile reports (Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report, Laming, 2003). Evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee (UK Parliament, 2006) reported that local authorities have less help than other sectors in coping with FOI. They ‘rely on networks and regional groups’, unlike central government they ‘do not have a clearing house’ and have ‘no hierarchy of support and advice’. In addition, ‘local authorities are still working on records management, the vast majority still do not have a corporate records management system’. Yet they deal with a high volume of FOI requests on a wide range of subjects and are at the cutting edge of implementation. Recent Practice Recommendations against two city councils (ICO, 2007) have exposed the risk of non-compliance. We propose to concentrate the study on the FOI experience of local authorities, focusing on the south east of England, including London, which provide examples of both small and large organizations, with and without dedicated records management professionals, and offer an opportunity for significant improvement.

The research project breaks into six activities: 1. Desk research In addition to a full literature survey of relevant sources for this study, we will also analyse disclosure logs for selected authorities, appeals, ICO Decision Notices, Practice Recommendations and Tribunal decisions (ICO, 2007, Information Tribunal, 2007), and sources indicating the government policy framework (DCA, now Ministry of Justice). Desk research will also inform the choice of sample for each of the three respondent groups outlined above (Yeo, 2005). Data will be gathered from groups 1 (records managers) and 2 (FOI policy managers) by means of semi-structured interviews, and from the user community (group 3) by focus groups, as described below. Consent forms and confidentiality agreements will be prepared in accordance with UCL’s Committee on Ethics guidance, http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk/ethics/.

2. Semi-structured interviews Data collection from records managers and from FOI managers will focus around semi-structured interviews (Seidman, 1998). The researchers will design appropriate data collection instruments in accordance with good research practice (Pickard, 2007, Gorman and Clayton, 2005, Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, Strauss, 2003). A minimum of 20 interviews, typically of 30-40 minutes duration, will be held, 10 with records managers and 10 with senior FOI managers. We have access to TNA’s FOI contacts list which will help us to identify potential respondents. In designing the interview schedule and questions for records management services (Group 1), existing toolkits will be reviewed, including the Lord Chancellor’s Records Management Code, the Model Action Plans and TNA’s Evaluation Workbook and Methodology. Work by UCL’s Constitution Unit which addresses preparedness for FOI (Amos, 2004, Amos and Holsen, 2005, Bettiss and Holsen, 2005) and the ICO (2006) will inform the interview design for FOI managers (Group 2). We will explore their experiences of the management of FOI, risk assessments, candour in records creation, resource allocation, policies and practices.

3. Focus groups Two focus groups each of 5-6 participants will gather data from FOI requesters (Group 3). The focus groups will be organised with UCL’s Centre for Information Behaviour and Evaluation of Research (CIBER) and Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) and in accordance with best practice (Krueger & Casey, 2000), adapting the LEADERS user segmentation model (Sexton et al, 2004, Yeo, 2005) to identify a range of users (eg local and national press, pressure groups, MPs, individuals). We will seek access to FOI requestors through the local authority respondents we will have interviewed (see above). Alternatively, we will identify users from public sources (media reports, MPs, DCA’s Information Rights User Group, requesters known to the researchers). We will include users with both ‘private’ and ‘public’ interest requests and ask them about the reasons for making requests, their experience of the request process, the result of the request, and subsequent actions.

4. Data analysis The transcription and analysis of the data will take place using N6 software to assist with the organisation and coding of the qualitative data from the interviews and focus groups.

5. Dissemination Dissemination is a key part of the project and will play an important role in encouraging respondents to take part and in providing feedback. The project will be announced in newsletters, journals and electronic discussion lists. Information on progress will be provided through the UCLSLAIS site (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/SLAIS/research/icarus/). A peer-reviewed journal article and conference paper will be submitted.

6. Project management Staff roles and project management are described below.

Project management

Dr Elizabeth Shepherd, senior lecturer, at UCLSLAIS (PI, 6 hours per week) will manage the project, supported by Dr A Flinn (Co-I, 2 hours per week). Shepherd has research expertise in records management and FOI from a records perspective; Flinn’s academic interest in FOI from a user/requestor perspective and his experience as an FOI compliance officer complements this. The Research Assistant (full-time, 12 months) will be responsible, in consultation with the PI, for desk research, developing the data collection instruments, collecting the research data through interviews and focus groups, transcribing and analysing the data, and preparing a draft report on the results. The Research Assistant will be either a qualified archivist/records manager, with an MA in Archives and Records Management and experience in records management, or a graduate with experience in humanities or social science research. He/she will be supervised day-to-day by Dr Shepherd and will work within the UCLSLAIS research group, ICARUS, which will provide expert guidance and support.

A Management Group to oversee the project will include experts from TNA, FOI, records management and research communities:  Professor Robert Hazell (UCL, Constitution Unit, ESCR-funded Evaluating the impact of FOI in the UK (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/foidp/research/Evaluation/index.html)  Maurice Frankel (Director, Campaign for FOI)  Dr Steve Wood (FOI Policy, ICO)  Sarah Holsen (UCL, Constitution Unit)  Susan Healy (TNA)  Piers Cain (information and records consultant, formerly TNA)  Steve Bailey (JISCinfoNet)  Rudi Leoni (London Connect FOIA Forum). Work plan

Month May 2008 6. Project management. Recruit research assistant and establish Management Group. May-June 2008 6. Project management. Research assistant starts, 12 May 2008. Management Group meets. 1. Desk research to analyse existing resources and relevant literature. July-October 2008 2. Semi-structured interviews. Design data collection instruments for Groups 1 and 2, including consent forms and confidentiality agreements; select sample for each group; arrange and conduct 2 x 10 interviews; transcribe interview data; begin data analysis. 6. Project management. Progress review. November 2008 3. Focus groups. Design and apply data collection for Group 3; data transcription and analysis for Group 3. 6. Project management. Management Group meets. December 2008- January 2009 4. Data analysis from all three groups; write up initial research findings and methodological findings. February-March 2009 4. Data analysis from all three groups; write up initial research findings and methodological findings continues. 6. Project management. Management Group meets. Research Assistant finishes contract on 31 March 2009 April-July 2009 5. Dissemination. Analysis and writing up for publication; preparation of conference paper, draft final project report for funders, by PI and Co-I.

Dissemination

The theoretical and policy analysis will be disseminated through academic and practitioner articles (in a professional records journal, eg Journal of the Society of Archivists or an FOI or public policy journal, eg Open Government or Public Administration) and an international conference paper, eg at International Council on Archives Congress (August 2008) or Annual Information Rights Conference for the Public Sector: FOI Live (www.foilive.com). We will explore with the records management and FOI communities the most effective ways of embedding the findings in professional practice.

Resubmission

In response to reviewers’ feedback, the research questions have been clarified, the choice of local authorities explained, the user aspect more fully integrated and the research methods set out in more detail. The research context has been shortened and current references added. Select Bibliography

Amos (2004) Delivering freedom of information: a practical guide to the FOIA 2000, Local Government Association (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/foidp/Local/DeliveringFOIweb.pdf). Amos, Holsen and Rahman (2005) Freedom of Information Act 2000: the first year. The experience of local authorities in England (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/foidp/Local/Report%20-%20local %20authorities%20experience%20with%20FOI%202005%20-%20FINAL.pdf) Archer and Lord (2005) FOI: The impact on local authority archive services and other public bodies in Wales – a state of the nation report Aberystwyth: Society of Archivists Wales. Bettiss and Holsen (2005) Freedom of Information in the first six months: the FOI practitioners perspective (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution- unit/foidp/downloads/FOILive2005practitionersurveyreport.pdf). Flinn and Jones (2007) Open access or empty archives?: contemporary history and freedom of information, Routledge, forthcoming. Glover, Holsen, MacDonald, Rahman, Simpson (2006) Freedom of information: history. Experience and records and information management implications in the USA, Canada and the UK, Pittsburgh, PA: ARMA. ICO (2006) Freedom of Information: one year on, (http://www.ico.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/FOI_one_year_on_research_findings_Jan06.pdf). ICO (2007) Decision notices, Enforcement notices, Practice Recommendations (http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices.aspx; http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/document_library/freedom_of_information.aspx#notices). Information Tribunal (2007) Decisions (http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/ourDecisions.htm). JISC infoNet (2006) Information Legislation and Management Survey 2006 (http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/foi-survey/2006). LEADERS project (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leaders-project/). The National Archives (2006) Complying with the Records Management Code: evaluation workbook and methodology (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/code/assessing.htm). Screene (2005) ‘How prepared are public bodies for the implementation of the UK Freedom of Information Act in January 2005?’ Records Management Journal 15:1:34-42. Sexton, Turner, Yeo and Hockey (2004) ‘Understanding users: a prerequisite for developing new technologies’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 25: 2: 33-50. Shepherd & Ennion (2007), ‘How has the implementation of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 affected archives and records management services?’ Records Management Journal 17:1: 32-51. UK Parliament, (2006) House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee: Freedom of Information - One Year On (Seventh Report of Session 2005–06, HC 991). Yeo (2005) ‘Understanding users and use: a market segmentation approach’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 26: 1: 25-53.

The impact of the UK Freedom of Information Act on records management in the public sector UCL School of Library, Archive and Information Studies University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 3232 Fax: +44 (0)20 7383 0557 [email protected] / [email protected] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/SLAIS/research/icarus/foi-impact/