Review of the Costs Associated with Administering Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Legislation

• Previous page
• Table of contents
• Complete text
• Next page

Appendix A - Survey Questions Posed to the ATIP Community

Structure of the Survey

The survey was composed of four parts:

Part I Suggestions to Reduce Cost while Respecting the Spirit of the Acts
Part II Estimate of 1998-99 Costs
Part III Furthering Our Understanding of ATI Requests
Part IV Furthering Our Understanding of Privacy Requests

Part I - Suggestions to Reduce Costs while Respecting the Spirit of the Acts

A series of opening ended questions were asked. Specifically:

• How can the approval process be streamlined to reduce costs?
• How can information management practices be improved to reduce costs?
• How is your department using advanced technologies to facilitate access?
• What type of improvements should be made to the policies and regulations to reduce costs?
• Do you have other comments?

PART II - Estimate of 1998-99 Costs

Costs of Operating the ATIP Unit

• What were the total costs incurred in 1998-99 by your department to support the operation of the ATIP unit? Respondents were asked to classify costs incurred and to allocate costs between ATI and Privacy.
• How many Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs) were utilized by the ATIP Unit to support the administration of ATIP legislation for fiscal year 1998-99? Respondents were asked to allocate FTEs between ATI and Privacy.
• Respondents were asked to assign a percentage of the O&M costs (salaries & other) to the following activities:
  • Processing costs of ATIP requests
  • Handling of Complaints
  • General Management and Administration
  • Training and Orientation of Staff outside of Unit
  • Orientation of and liaison with records management (MGIH) personnel
  • Preparation of annual reports
  • Other costs incurred.

• Respondents were asked to estimate the time spent on behalf of their organization to respond to an average request in hours of effort. Estimates were requested of the time spent by the OPI, the ATIP Unit and others. Separate estimates were requested for both ATI and Privacy requests.

• Respondents were asked to assign a percentage of time spent, by the ATIP Unit and by the OPI, for the following activities:
  • Searching for the information
  • Preparing the information
  • Reviewing the information for exemptions & exclusions
  • Administration
  • Other

Separate estimates were requested for both ATI and Privacy requests.

Information Systems

• Respondents were asked about the systems and practices used to record and track ATIP requests and associated costs.

Part III - Furthering Our Understanding of ATI Requests and Part IV - Furthering Our Understanding of Privacy Requests

Similar questions were asked for each program to help appreciate current trends, the source of requests and complaints, the related reasons, cost implications, the frequency of requests by requester, complexity of requests and the existence of or potential for alternative means of access.

Specifically, respondents were asked to:

1. Comment on and identify any analysis or studies their units had conducted on the nature of requests received.
2. Describe and explain the reasons for the current trends over the last three years, as it relates to the complexity of requests, number of requests, cost to complete and response times.
3. Identify the sources of requests and to provide information of the reasons for requests by source. Sources were suggested for ATI requests and included the media, academia, business, Members of Parliament, the public and others. No suggestions were made for Privacy requests.
4. Categorize requesters by the frequency of requests made.
5. Identify the source of complaints and the reasons why they occurred.
6. Assess the percentage of all costs associated with the processing of requests and the handling of complaints for each source.
7. Categorize the relative complexity of requests in comparison to a series of statements, as follows:
   • Information requested is readily accessible; little to no review is required.
   • Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare; little review is equired.
   • Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review is required. Consultation with Legal Services is not required.
   • Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review is required. Consultation with Legal Services is required.

8. Identify the extent to which alternative means of access exist or could be established, based on the following scenarios:
   • Information requested is already made available to the public.
   • Information requested is not readily available to the public, but an opportunity exists to do so.
   • Alternative access is provided by another Act of Legislation. Respondents were asked to name the Act(s) of Legislation, if applicable.
   • Alternative access is provided by the Courts through the normal conduct of legal proceedings.
   • Alternative access is provided by other means. Please specify.
   • For ATI requests, a motion for the production of papers relating to a question raised by a Member of Parliament has also been received.

Appendix B - Survey Responses by the ATIP Community

Introduction

This appendix summarizes the responses as received from the ATIP Community for Parts I, III and IV of the survey. Response rates are provided to enable the reader to see the frequency of response and gauge the interest for particular questions.

Responses to Part II of the survey were analyzed to develop cost estimates for the Access to Information and Privacy Programs. The results of that analysis can be found in Appendix C.

Survey Response Rates

Part I - Summary of Comments by ATIP Coordinators relative to the Open-ended Questions on How to Reduce Costs while Respecting the Spirit of the Acts

Note:  The number in the right hand column indicates the number of respondents that had comments grouped under the opposite heading.   Numbers in brackets indicate the number of respondents who made essentially the same comment or suggestion. 

Introduction to Parts III and IV

For both Part 3 and Part 4 of the survey, some results are presented in two formats:

1. Percentage of total responses for each question.
2. Percentage of total responses for each question using a weighted scale that takes into consideration the number of requests completed by the department during 1998-99. These figures give higher weights to those departments with more completed requests and no weights to those departments without completed requests for 1998-99. The following table demonstrates how the weights are determined.

Part III - Furthering Our Understanding of ATI Requests

Part IV - Furthering Our Understanding of PRIVACY Requests

Appendix C - An Estimate of Overall Costs

Introduction

Our cost estimate is based on surveys received as of November 10, 1999. At that time, we had received over 70 responses to our survey from the ATIP community and 13 from the Legal Service Unit community (see Appendix D for the List of Respondents). Of the ATIP Units that responded, 15 pertained to the 28 agencies which came under the Acts in 1999-2000. Our overall coverage for respondents, based on completed Access and Privacy requests for fiscal year 1998-99, is approximately 88% for completed Access requests and 99% for completed Privacy requests.

Assumptions Made in Developing Our Cost Projections

As shown in our earlier study, the nature of the information needed to project costs to the government for the administration of the two pieces of legislation is not readily available. While ATIP Units may ask for information on the time spent by the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), there are practical difficulties to ensuring that such costs are consistently captured and reported. For this reason, in both the current and earlier study, we have asked the ATIP community to provide estimates of the time spent by the OPI and for estimates on how that time is spent. Soliciting comments from the ATIP Units offers an objectivity and overall perspective that a broader survey of OPIs could not provide.

To avoid questions of consistency, cost factors applied in the 1993-94 study were used in our projection of labour costs as it relates to the time spent by the OPIs. The labour rate is based on an annual salary of $40,000 plus benefits, with the exception of the time spent by the OPI, when reviewing information gathered pursuant to a request. For OPI review time, we used a pay rate of $70,000. This rate was used to better reflect the cost of more senior officials who are typically involved in the review of materials. Facilities costs are estimated at $7,000 per employee and were applied only to full-time equivalents, as identified by the ATIP Units, and by other dedicated support groups that are typically found in the Department of Justice and the TBS.

Overall Costs

Based on the results of our survey, we have projected that the overall cost to the government to support the Access to Information Program for the fiscal year 1998-99 is about $24,945,000, exclusive of the $3,900,000 involved to support the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC). Costs for the Access to Information Program appear to be rising at a rate of 7% per year. This is consistent with the annual increase of 8% in the number of completed requests. The overall increase of total costs since 1993-94 is about 41%. The number of completed requests increased by 46% over this same period. Costs associated with the OIC appear not to have kept up with the overall rate of increase, as experienced by departments and agencies. The costs for the OIC have risen only by 11% since 1993-94.

Based on the 14,340 requests completed in 1998-99:

• The average handling cost for a completed request is estimated at $1,130.
• The average total cost, exclusive of the OIC, is $1,740.
• The average total cost, inclusive of the OIC, is $2,010.

Estimated average handling costs declined by 8%, reflecting a significant drop in search time. Gains in search time are partly offset by increases in the handling of complaints. The estimated average costs, including indirect costs, declined by 3%. This primarily relates to increased costs incurred by the Privy Council Office. Overall estimated average costs, including the OIC's costs, declined by 7%, reflecting the OIC's significantly lower increase in costs, since 1993-94. With an average of $20 received per completed request, which includes fees and recoveries, revenues generated by this program continue to be low at about 1% of the direct program costs.

For the Privacy Program, projected costs are estimated to be about $15,035,000, exclusive of the $4,760,000 involved to support the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). Overall costs for Privacy requests appear stable as experienced by departments and agencies. When the costs of the OPC are taken into consideration, the overall costs to the government have risen by 4% since 1993-94. The costs of the OPC have risen at an annual rate of 5% or by about 30% since 1993-94. During the same period, completed requests declined by 6%.

Based on the 36,133 requests completed in 1998-99:

• The average handling cost for a completed request is estimated at $270.
• The average total cost, exclusive of the OPC, is $420.
• The average total cost, inclusive of the OPC, is $550.

Estimated average handling costs declined by 10%. Unlike Access to Information requests, search time appears to have risen when responding to Privacy requests. The declines reflect a significant drop in review time. After including indirect costs, estimated average costs have increased by 5%. This relates to significant increases by the ATIP Units in general management and facilities costs. Overall estimated average costs, including the OPC's costs, have increased by 12%, since 1993-94, reflecting the impact of the OPC's increasing costs.

The total cost for both programs inclusive of the Office of the Commissioners' costs is estimated at $48,640,000 ($39,980,000 exclusive of Commissioners' costs).

Costs Associated with Access to Information Program

Our analysis of our estimate of $24,945,000 spent by government departments and agencies annually shows the following breakdown of costs:

Analysis of Eligible Costs & Recoveries

The following table indicates that the overall rate of cost recovery is about 1.4% of all handling costs directly associated with ATI requests. While overall recovery of eligible and recoverable costs is about 25%, these recoveries are based on the $10 per hour labour rate. If a rate of $30 per hour were used, which reflects a salary of $40,000, recoveries would be only about 8%.

Note A: While the Act allows up to five free hours of search and preparation time, the average estimated search time is 3.8 hours. Based on this information, we have projected that 80% of search time would not likely be recoverable.

Note B: Total fees include $66,910 in application fees that are not recoveries of costs incurred. These fees are deducted to determine the actual rate of recovery for costs incurred.

Under the current cost recovery regime, the maximum amount possible for recovery is about $900,000 or 5.6% of total handling costs (22.5% of the cost of search and preparation time).

If the hourly rate for search and preparation time was increased to $30, the maximum possible recovery would rise to $2,700,000 or 16.7% of total handling costs (67.4% of cost of search and preparation time). Based on current experience for actual recoveries, total fees, based on a $30 rate, would be about $750,000 or 4.6% of total handling costs (18.7% of the cost of search and preparation time). This assumes that such an increase would not affect demand or the rigour in which departments and agencies seek to recover allowable costs and the recovery rate.

Costs Associated with the Privacy Program

Our analysis of our estimate of $15,035,000 spent by government departments and agencies annually shows the following breakdown of costs:

Comparative Analysis of 1993-94 and 1998-99 Studies

Access to Information Act Cost Projections

The overall projection for the Access to Information Act for 1993-94 was based on survey results obtained from ten departments. The requests completed by these organizations represented 59% of the total population. The cost for the remaining 41% was extrapolated under the assumption that the incremental cost for handling individual requests would be about the same for all government organizations. For 1998-99, all government departments and agencies were surveyed. The current cost analysis is based on information provided by 45 different organizations, representing 88% of completed requests.

When the results of the 1998-99 survey were compared with the 1993-94 results, as reported in the 1995 study, a 12% increase in the overall costs was observed. This increase did not appear to be reasonable given the 46% increase in the number of completed requests and 66% increase in total costs as reported by the ATIP Units for 1998-99. (See Appendices E and F for trend information over the last ten years.) Analysis of a control group of seven major departments with comparative information for the two surveys indicated that the handling costs for the control group is about twice the amount, as experienced by other organizations. Accordingly, the 1993-94 totals were restated consistent with the reported results for the 1998-99 survey to allow for a direct comparison between the two surveys.

Analysis of search time for the control group indicated a significant reduction in the time reported to obtain the information needed to respond to a request.

Privacy Cost Projections

The overall projection for the Privacy Act for 1993-94 was based on survey results obtained from six departments. The requests completed by these organizations represented 85% of the total population. The reporting organizations for the 1998-99 survey represent 99% of completed requests. Cost patterns appeared consistent with trends over the intervening period. For this reason, no additional analysis into the projected costs was made. (See Appendix G for trend information over the last ten years.)

Appendix D -Respondents

ATIP Respondents FY 1998-99

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada
Atomic Energy Control Board
Bank of Canada
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
Canada Post Corporation
Canadian Centre for Management Development
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
Canadian Heritage
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Canadian Space Agency
Canadian Transportation Agency
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Copyright Board Canada
Correctional Service of Canada
Defence Construction Canada
Department of Finance Canada
Department of Justice Canada
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada
Health Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Immigration and Refugee Board
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Industry Canada
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
International Development Research Centre
Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated
Law Commission of Canada
Medical Research Council of Canada
National Archives of Canada
National Defence
National Film Board of Canada
National Library of Canada
National Museum of Science and Technology
National Research Council Canada
Natural Resources Canada
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Northern Pipeline Agency Canada
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Patented Medicines Prices Review Board
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Solicitor General Canada
Statistics Canada
Transport Canada
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Veterans Affairs Canada

ATIP Respondents FY 1999-00

Canada Industrial Relations Board
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Federal Bridge Corporation Limited
Fraser River Port Authority
Leadership Network
Montreal Port Authority
North Fraser Port Authority
Port Alberni Port Authority
Prince Rupert Port Authority
Saguenay Port Authority
Sahtu Land and Water Board
Sept-îles Port Authority
Toronto Port Authority
Vancouver Port Authority
Windsor Port Authority

Appendix E - Access to Information Requests

A Ten-Year Perspective of Costs, Fees, Person-Years and Requests

Appendix F - Access to Information Requests by Source

A Ten-Year Perspective

Appendix G - Privacy Requests

A Ten-Year Perspective of Costs, Person-Years and Requests

• Previous page
• Table of contents
• Complete text
• Next page