We are currently moving our web services and information to Canada.ca.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website will remain available until this move is complete.

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


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.

Estimates of Costs Incurred by the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) (i.e. the office that holds the information requested)

  • 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.

Nature of the Activities of the ATIP Unit and the OPI

  • 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.
  1. 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

Survey Response Rate
  Organizations Response Rate
Total population (organizations receiving the survey) 135 --
Total responses for Part 2 of the survey 65 49%
Total responses for Part 1, Part 3 and Part 4 of the survey 81 60%

 

Results for Part 1 and 3 of Survey
Access Organizations Total Requests Completed in 1998-99
Respondents listed in TBS database as at March 31, 1999 58 12,004
Respondents not listed in TBS database 23 N/A
Total Responses 81 12,004
 
Organizations in the TBS database with data 86 14,340
Organizations in the TBS database without data 17 N/A
Organizations listed in TBS database 103 14,340
 
Percentage of Survey Coverage (12,004 / 14,340) 84%

 

Results for Part 1 and 4 of Survey
Privacy Organizations Total Requests Completed in 1998-99
Respondents listed in TBS database as at March 31, 1999 61 34,618
Respondents not listed in TBS database 20 N/A
Total Responses 81 34,618
 
Organizations in the TBS database with data 57 36,313
Organizations in the TBS database without data 52 N/A
Organizations listed in TBS database 109 36,313
 
Percentage of Survey Coverage (34,618 / 36,313) 96%

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. 

Question 1: How can the approval process be streamlined to reduce costs?
Response rate of total organizations who responded: 52%
Response rate of total population: 32%
Response Frequency

Greater Delegation of Authority / Changes in Roles & Responsibilities

  • Delegate all or majority of powers/duties to the Departmental ATIP Coordinator (5)
  • Communications or legal must be kept entirely separate
  • Usually only 2 people in approval process, rarely requires the Chairman's approval
  • Routine decisions handled by ATIP officer, while new types of requests or those with potential forimpact are lifted to higher levels
  • delegation downwards for some sections of the Act
  • clarify who has authority under which section (2)
  • ATIP Coordinators should have authority to process and authorize release of information and preparecommunication materials
  • Too many levels in the process
  • Small agency - Approval process resides with ATIP Coordinator in consultation with departmental manager.Specific portions of Act delegated to President/CEO for final sign-off prior to disclosure
  • Need to educate senior management to be more aware of ATIP requirements and to appreciate the role ofATIP Coordinators. Treasury Board can visit departments to support this process by visiting departments andhighlighting the challenges faced by Coordinators to senior management.
15

No Additional Streamlining Possible

  • Streamlining would affect timeliness rather than cost
  • Costs are not very high (3)
  • Not an issue with small institutions (5)
  • Already streamlined (6)
  • No delays for small organizations
16

Process Improvements

  • Increase ATIP exemption authority or reduce number of exemptions requiring review/approval.
  • Reduce number of release packages identified as requiring media lines and review by Minister's Office
  • Train staff at the initial process stage and ensure that exemptions are consistent and reflect policiesand practices. Ensure all documentation is released together especially for sensitive requests to avoidre-requests.
  • Periodically review ATI approval process, with senior management, to refine and implement any newprocedures with a view to simplify the process
  • Reviewed and streamlined procedures by removing steps and trying for concurrence with other processessuch as those involved in the production of memos.
5

Informal Process

  • More informal requests should be encouraged
  • Requester should communicate directly with OPI for clarification and determine if information can bereleased informally
2

Tools

  • Use of electronic system for all records would give quick/easy access to ATIP Coordinator except forprotected/confidential/sensitive records that are mainly handled without further consultation.
  • Establish more strict regulations that permit some departments to reject abusive demands.
2
Question 2: How can information management practices be improved to reduce costs?
Response rate of total organizations who responded: 50%
Response rate of total population: 30%
Frequency Frequency

Better Records Management

  • Establish centralized filing systems and assign appropriate resources for maintenance
  • Too much time spent - Need system where creator can file info easily - Documents lack proper identifiersto permit quick retrieval
  • All documents appropriately filed
  • Modernize file processing functions (scanning, imaging, electronic releases, electronic cost recovery)
  • Record keeping rules for entire organization
  • Central registry filing system allows for quick retrieval of records. Work on keeping correspondence andother docs from bypassing central system as time is wasted tracking
  • Improve information search process - Records spread among too many people - Too many transitory recordskept
  • ongoing refining of system
  • Make better use of central registry and transitory records. Regular reviews of the DispositionAuthorities and actual removal of disposable records would assist in bringing the focus of the centralregistry on corporate memory records
  • Simplify record keeping - Improve information management - Avoid duplicate records, recordclassification, well regulated archiving/filing system, good record retention/ destruction practices
  • vigorous communication of dept info mgmt policies and procedures
11

Accessibility of Information

  • Maximum information for the public via the Internet (2)
  • More information should be available in library
  • Informal access for prompt response to client
  • Information deemed public' should be accessible on-line or through departmental libraries
  • public examination room and provide material for public viewing to reduce the requests
5

Training Improvements

  • Ensure staff has knowledge of MGIH, classification system, retention/disposal schedules, anddepartmental operations
  • Training and auditing of information management system
  • Well-trained conscientious staff
  • Knowledge of info mgmt practices to improve process and reduce cost
  • Provide training on records management practices and new ATIP tracking system
  • Info mgmt systems require experienced, well-trained people to assist with ATIP search and retrievalactivities. People solutions, not just technical solutions
  • Better awareness of information management objectives and policies and senior management support wouldimprove practices and reduce costs
  • Educate departmental officials - i.e. difference between transitory and corporate records; properretention and disposal periods; standardize electronic filing; on technology and software capabilities
13

Process Improvements

  • Ensure the chain of information mgmt structure is sound and raise awareness of the importance of recordkeeping procedures and process
  • Keep staff informed
  • special effort on backlog
  • monitoring record flow
  • develop and adopt form info management system
  • uniform filing system and records retention schedule which is handled by the informatics section
  • Program managers to identify records as protection to allow more information through informal channels
  • Internal policy paper developed examining records and information management, procedures, guidelines andpractices
10

Technology Improvements/Usages

  • Fast implementation of any information management system
  • Improve the CAIR system
  • New record system
  • Electronic records to speed delivery, reduce reproduction and distribution costs, avoid backlogs andcomplaints
  • Use technology and ensure process and procedures are implemented at its introduction
  • Use electronic document management and registry system
  • More ATIP involvement in developing information systems
  • TB support for improved/standard electronic file management systems and web-based training packages forATIP
  • Electronic management system - can capture more e-records and reduce costs associated with paper system,also it can increase time available for info searching
  • Implemented electronic information management system FOREMOST to reduce time and cost
  • E-mail notification of TB/Justice updates to ATI/privacy (e.g. Bulletins, court case summaries)
11

Other

  • Costs and requests are so low they have no need to review their management practices
  • Organize a focus group to probe information management practices
  • Focused on designing forms, literature, and collections to avoid costly processing. No longer wait forexpert review feedback before disclosing informal application results - a form of preemptive disclosure.
  • Requests are minimal to nil
  • Costs are minimal. Record processing is minimal and not extensive
5

 

Question 3: How is your department using advanced technologies to facilitate access?
Response rate of total organizations who responded: 58%
Response rate of total population: 35%
Response Frequency

Provision of Services via Internet

  • Used Website to eliminate some formal requests
  • Post information/notices/decisions on the Website (10)
  • Use Access to Information application on internet to facilitate service
  • Electronic payments for applications
  • Increasing use of website for policy manuals and operational memoranda
  • Justice website facilitates access to information on departmental activities
15

IT used to Facilitate the Process

  • Databases for searches
  • Conducting pilot electronic file management
  • Electronic document management system (EDMS) and databases to locate information
  • generate reports/information from database
  • Filing of reports electronically
  • Computer system to archive correspondence/records in database for future access
  • Reduce reporting requirements
  • Implement electronic tracking system with imaging and outgoing correspondence.
  • electronic management system to facilitate retention and access (2)
  • Introduce electronic document management system to allow documents to be accessed in one repository
  • Corporate services use DOCS to retrieve and save documents. Piloting records keeping system and EDMS tomanage paper and electronic docs. Provide single window of access using Departmental Knowledge' initiative.
12

Types of Systems and Usages

  • Collect information on National Library of Canada's Access-AMICUS database providing access to alldepartments
  • Phoenix information system at CIDA and ATIPflow
  • EDM system to manage records ensuring facilitation of records and attachments
  • Use ATIP system to capture/manipulate data better
  • Use ATIPflow
  • Case tracking system
  • Upgrade ATIP tracking system software
  • ATIPflow to process information requests and reduce gathering time
  • Accept access requests by e-mail and fax.
9

Minimal Usage of Advanced Technologies

  • very little use (4)
  • No funds to purchase necessary ATIPflow software
  • Not using electronic information system for fear of missing documents which should be part of a request- Need to work on policies and procedures
7

Usage of Electronic Mail

  • communication/circulate policies, bulletins, etc. (4)
  • backups made daily
  • accept requests, correspond, sometimes disclose records (2)
  • E-mail communications and file transfers. Accessibility to case file systems to eliminate need to seekassistance of OPIs to print and respond to inquiries. Blanking photocopiers to prepare releases
8

Other

  • Many initiatives are limited by security concerns, compatibility of software or technical limits as tosize of information that can be circulated
  • Response on diskette where possible (2)
  • All documents are produced electronically
  • Pilot project to scan documents into electronic format. System would assist in research/retrieval foraccess requests - Electronic correspondence tracking system - has its limitations.
  • Uses various custom and off-the-shelf information management systems to facilitate processing, storageand retrieval
  • No technology improvements for records management needed
  • Revise legislation to discourage frivolous requests and make commercial users pay their way
  • Using word-processing technology
10
Question 4: What type of improvements should be made to the policies and regulations to reduce costs?
Response rate of total organizations who responded: 45%
Response rate of total population: 27%
Response Frequency

Revise Fees

  • Increase application fee (5)
  • Introduce processing fee to eliminate frivolous and vexatious requests
  • Charge photocopy fees (2)
  • Professional requesters should pay full fees (2)
  • Modify fee structure for broad scope requests will force requests to be narrowed
  • Fees for complaints
  • Fee structure balance required: cost recovery versus free information
  • Recover some cost from frequent requesters for reviewing for exemptions
  • Partial cost recovery in place plus fees for reproduction, search, preparation, and programming
  • Simplify fee schedule
  • Charge for actual costs incurred
  • Update cost recovery fee schedule (3)
  • Eliminate fees
  • Cost recovery to include OPI review time of records - i.e. exemption/exclusion and recommendations
  • costs increase because of the necessity to quickly search and review both manual and electronic sourcesof records
  • No more application fee - it costs more to process the receipt of $5 than the $5 fee itself.
  • Increase cost recovery for search/preparation, programming and photocopying.
  • Departments should not process other departments' records in order to reduce postage costs and delays
  • Fees are not enough to cover actual costs and overhead for requests - increase search fees and recoverreproduction costs
  • Charge fees to deter repeat requests by people for same information and eliminate frivolous complaints
29

Tools

  • MGIH Policy and depositing information in the library
  • Improve record keeping management
  • Update and improve Information Management policies and compliance could decrease search time andcomplaints
  • Update TBS-ATIP policy manuals
  • Provision of reference tools from TBS, Justice, and Federal Court
  • Develop policy/guidelines to manage technology use and information processing
  • Revise MGIH to reflect electronic information
  • Make information available in the Internet
8

Training

  • More Treasury Board training and people with hands-on experience to give interpretation of the Act
  • Understanding of ATIP legislation
  • Educate and inform employees on ongoing issues/concerns. Internal training and TBS assisted training tosave time, effort and costs.
3

Time Limit

  • More flexible time limits
  • Extension of time limits
2

Other

  • Users to make own photocopies or scan documents
  • Omnibus requests require extraordinary search times - should be discouraged/ disallowed
  • Removal of information disclosure protection under the Act, as it pertains to PMPRB, could increase thenumber of requests on the PMPRB
  • Consistency in policy applications - i.e. charges, extensions, and managing requests
  • Release information on informal basis to reduce administrative costs
  • Post listing of departmental records previously released
6
Question 5: Do you have other comments?
Response rate of total organizations who responded: 27%
Response rate of total population: 16%
Response Frequency

Cost Considerations

  • Strengthen existing mechanisms for information dissemination that are cost effective
  • We have a statutory obligation to be financially self-sufficient therefore we should be able to recoupfull cost
  • We run a business to make a profit - The Act makes it difficult - Should have the right to protectcommercially sensitive and competitive information
  • Review ATIP request cost structure
  • Increase cost recovery
  • Fee waives for requests and information are readily available
7

Tools and Resources

  • Improve records management to reduce costs and increase informal releases
  • TBS should have inventory of well-trained employees on short notice for assignment.
  • Standard template for approval process for Minister
  • Need a combination of resources, use of technology, increased openness, legislative reform
  • Increase use of internet, public affairs staff, and other information sharing processes to effecttimely, proactive disclosures of requests being made
  • Go paperless whenever possible - Ensure staff have proper tools - current policy education, process andtechnology
  • Provide a forum, in addition to the ATIP Information Sessions, where ATIP Coordinators can meet anddiscuss ideas, experiences, and important issues
8

Training

  • Education in rights of access under ATIA, ownership/care of records, improved information/recordmanagement - Mandatory retraining on principles of accountability and transparency
  • ATIP coordinators should provide training and establish policies and procedures
  • Better training and awareness to reduce costs
  • TBS-Justice training on ATIP
4

Other

  • Receive few requests and/or associated costs are minimal (5)
  • Not subject to ATI Act and no ATIP staff.
  • Most potential requesters are seeking feedback on their grant/scholarship applications. ATIP officermakes informal disclosure to these clients.
We encourage applicants to view the records to alleviate unnecessary photocopying
8

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.
  A B   
Organization Multiplication Factor for Unweighted Responses Total Completed Requests Multiplication Factor for Weighted Responses ((B/100)*4)
Department 1 1.00 20 0.80
Department 2 1.00 10 0.40
Department 3 1.00 40 1.60
Department 4 1.00 30 1.20
Total 4.00 100 4.00

Part III - Furthering Our Understanding of ATI Requests

1. Does your unit perform analysis/studies on the nature of requests received?
Percentage of Response
Yes No N/A or N/R
11.11% 61.73% 27.16%

 

2. How would you describe the current trends over the last three years? Is it increasing, stable or decreasing?
  Percentage of Trend
Attribute Increasing Stable Decreasing N/A or N/R
Complexity of Requests 30.86% 27.16% 1.23% 40.74%
Number of Complaints 16.05% 25.93% 12.35% 45.67%
The cost to complete a request 20.99% 30.86% 1.23% 46.91%
Response times 16.05% 35.80% 6.17% 41.98%

 

3. Request source:
  Simple Average Weighted Average
Source % of all ATI requests Average number of requesters % of all ATI requests Average number of requesters
Media 19.99% 14.5 12.08% 23.9
Academia 5.94% 2.6 2.52% 2.8
Business 26.76% 19.9 34.92% 50.6
Members of Parliament 9.99% 25.7 9.52% 48.3
Public 30.94% 66.5 35.91% 546.2
Other 6.38% 18.1 5.04% 50.5
Total of Averages 100.00% 147.3 100.00% 722.4
Average Response Rate 66% N/A 57% N/A

 

4. For all requesters in 1998-99, what percentage made:
  Simple Average Weighted Average
1 request 77.89% 64.95%
2 requests 6.01% 11.53%
3 to 6 requests 9.08% 12.17%
7 requests or more 7.02% 11.36%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 57% 50%

 

  Simple Average Weighted Average
Media 18.20% 11.63%
Academia 1.10% 0.89%
Business 19.42% 38.36%
Members of Parliament 8.20% 9.05%
Public 41.70% 31.78%
Other 11.38% 8.29%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 37% 34%

 

6. What is the percentage of all costs associated with the processing of requests and the handling of complaints for each source?
  Simple Average Weighted Average
Media 26.77% 7.39%
Academia 1.71% 0.52%
Business 26.60% 43.11%
Members of Parliament 6.90% 8.37%
Public 33.95% 36.20%
Other 4.07% 4.40%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 30% 25%

 

7. This question is provided to gauge the relative complexity of requests. Out of a 100%, please specify the percentage of requests that fit the following statements. (Note: use of the terms prepare and review are as defined by the legislation):
Statement Simple Average Weighted Average
Information requested is readily accessible; little to no review required. 21.60% 6.24%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare; little review required. 20.66% 22.18%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review required. Consultation with Legal Services is not required. 32.75% 58.26%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review required. Consultation with Legal Services is required. 24.99% 13.32%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 65% 55.5%

 

8. This question is provided to identify requests for which alternative means of access exist or could be established. Please specify the percentage of requests that fit the following statements. (Note: percentages assigned are not expected to add up to 100):
  Simple Average Weighted Average
Statement Response Response Rate Response Response Rate
Information requested is already made available to the public. 19.30% 37.04% 4.95% 33.33%
Information requested is not readily available to the public, but an opportunity exists to do so. 26.88% 34.57% 17.54% 33.33%
Alternative access is provided by another Act of Legislation. 9.57% 8.64% 4.98% 7.41%
Alternative access is provided by the Courts through the normal conduct of legal proceedings. 9.93% 14.81% 18.32% 13.58%
A motion for the production of papers relating to a question raised by a Member of Parliament has also been received. 3.69% 17.28% 1.04% 17.28%
Alternative access is provided by other means. 16.60% 12.34% 15.74% 11.11%

Part IV - Furthering Our Understanding of PRIVACY Requests

 

1.  Does your unit perform analysis/studies on the nature of requests received?
Percentage of Response
Yes No N/A or N/R
6.17% 59.26% 34.57%

 

2.  How would you describe the current trends over the last three years? Is it increasing, stable or decreasing?
   Percentage of Trend
Increasing Stable Decreasing N/A or N/R
Complexity of Requests 7.41% 38.27% 2.47% 51.85%
Number of Complaints 7.41% 27.16% 4.94% 60.49%
The cost to complete a request 3.70% 35.80% 2.47% 58.02%
Response times 7.41% 34.57% 2.47% 55.56%

 

3.  Source of Requests.
Average % of all requests Total Average number of requesters
Academia 0.31% 0
Business 0.93% 120
Client 0.31% 14
Consultant 0.62% 679
Department 0.93% 57
Employee 4.01% 155
Individual 1.23% 23
Investigative 0.62% 688
Lawyer 0.93% 5108
Media 0.62% 201
Member 0.31% 0
Miscellaneous 1.85% 9860
Public 5.25% 6763
Research 0.31% 1
No response 81.79% N/A
Total 100.00% 23669

 

4.  A) For all requesters in 1998-99, what was the percentage of requesters making: 1, 2, 3 to 6, and 7 or more  requests?
Average number of requests per requester Simple Average Weighted Average
  • 1
92.85% 92.54%
  • 2
4.04% 2.56%
  • 3 to 6
2.31% 1.29%
  • 7 or more
0.80% 3.60%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 33% 26%

  

B) For all requesters in 1998-99, what was the percentage of all costs associated with the processing of requests and handling of complaints for each average number of requests per requester?
Average number of requests per requester Simple Average
*Note: The response rate is too low to produce meaningful 'Weighted Averages' of results.
1 90.33%
2 0.61%
3 to 6 0.17%
7 or more 8.89%
Total Average 100.00%
Average Response Rate 11%

 

6.  Who made complaints?
  Average % of all complaints
*Note: The response rate is too low to produce meaningful 'Weighted Averages' of results.
Business 0.93%
Client 0.31%
Consultant 0.31%
Employee 0.93%
Individual 0.31%
Lawyer 0.93%
Media 0.62%
Miscellaneous 0.93%
Public 3.70%
No response 91.05%
Total 100%

 

6.  What was the percentage of all costs associated with the processing of requests and the handling of complaints for each source?
  Average Percentage
*Note: The response rate is too low to produce meaningful 'Weighted Averages' of results.
Business 0.93%
Client 0.31%
Counsel 0.31%
Employees 1.23%
Individuals 0.93%
Lawyer 0.31%
Media 0.31%
Miscellaneous 0.62%
Public 2.47%
No response 92.59%
Total 100%

 

7. This question is provided to gauge the relative complexity of requests. Out of a 100%, please specify the percentage of requests that fit the following statements. (Note: use of the terms prepare and review are as defined by the legislation):
Statement Simple
Average
Weighted
Average
Information requested is readily accessible little to no review required. 25.00% 39.05%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare; little review required. 22.87% 20.79%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review required. Consultation with Legal Services is not required. 32.89% 34.44%
Information requested requires time/effort/consultation with others to retrieve or prepare and detailed review required. Consultation with Legal Services is required. 19.24% 5.71%
Total Average 100.00% 100.00%
Average Response Rate 40% 38.27%

 

8. This question is provided to identify requests for which alternative means of access exist or could be established. Please specify the percentage of requests that fit the following statements. (Note: percentages assigned are not expected to add up to 100):
  Simple Average
*Note: The response rate is too low to produce meaningful 'Weighted Averages' of results.
Statement Response Response Rate
Information requested is already made available to the public. 24.11% 11.11%
Information requested is not readily available to the public, but an opportunity exists to do so. 34.00% 6.17%
Alternative access is provided by another Act of Legislation. 5.00% 1.23%
Alternative access is provided by the Courts through the normal conduct of legal proceedings. 54.00% 6.17%
Alternative access is provided by other means. 36.67% 3.70%

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:

1998-99 1993-94 table note 1 % Change

Table Notes

Note 1

The projected costs for 1993-94 were adjusted to reflect the significantly lower unit costs as reported in 1998-99 for organizations with significantly fewer requests. For additional information, see Comparative Analysis of 1993-94 and 1998-99 Surveys. The costs for 1993-94 Review activities were also adjusted to reflect the higher labour rates as experienced by the OPIs.

Return to table note 1 referrer

Direct CostsHandling Costs
Search
 
$1,625,000

 

 


$2,310,000
 
(29.7)
Preparation 2,380,000   1,560,000 52.6
Review 9,105,000   6,300,000 44.5
Administration and Other 3,060,000   1,870,000 63.6
Total Handling Costs   $16,170,000 $12,040,000 34.3
ComplaintsDirect Costs $1,405,000 $17,575,000 690,000$12,730,000 103.638.1
Indirect CostsATIP Unit Overhead Costs        
General Management $2,225,000   $1,545,000 44.0
Training and Orientation 1,090,000   895,000 21.8
Other O&M 585,000   325,000 80.0
Facilities 1,925,000   1,300,000 48.1
Minor CapitalTotal ATIP Unit Overhead Costs 90,000  $5,915,000 515,000$4,580,000 (82.5)29.2
TBS/Justice/PCO/Federal CourtTotal Indirect Costs $1,455,000  $7,370,000 350,000$4,930,000 315.749.5
Total Costs   $24,945,000 $17,660,000 41.3

Average Costs per Completed Request 1998-99 - 14,340 Completed Requests 1993-94 - 9,792 Completed Requests
Total Average Total Average
Total Handling Costs $16,170,000 $1,130 $12,040,000 $1,230
Total Costs, excluding OIC $24,945,000 $1,740 $17,660,000 $1,800
Total Costs, including OIC $28,845,000 $2,010 $21,160,000 $2,160

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%.

Costs & Recoveries Eligible $ Ineligible $ Total $
Search 545,000 1,080,000 1,625,000
Preparation 790,000 1,590,000 2,380,000
Review - 9,105,000 9,105,000
Direct Administration & Other - 3,060,000 3,060,000
Total Handling costs 1,335,000 14,835,000 16,170,000
Less Estimated Free Search Time - Note A 435,000    
Net Eligible & Recoverable Costs 900,000    
Fees - Note B Percentage Recovered
Eligible & Recoverable Costs Adjusted for Actual Cost of Labour Total Handling Costs
Total Fees $289,788 32.2 10.7 1.8
Net Fees $222,878 24.8 8.3 1.4

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:

  1998-99 93-94 table note 2 % Change

Table Notes

Note 2

The costs for 1993-94 Review activities were adjusted to reflect the higher labour rates as experienced by the OPIs.

Return to table note 2 referrer

Direct Costs Handling Costs Search $1,190,000   $1,000,000 19.0
Preparation 1,130,000   1,130,000 0.0
Review 5,495,000   7,350,000 (25.2)
Administration and Other 1,880,000   2,050,000 (8.3)
Total Handling Costs   $9,695,000 $11,530,000 (15.9)
ComplaintsTotal Direct Costs $830,000 $10,525,000 640,000$12,170,000 29.7(13.5)
Indirect CostsATIP Unit Overhead Costs        
General Management $1,380,000   $755,000 82.8
Training and Orientation 725,000   625,000 16.0
Other O&M 300,000   115,000 160.9
Facilities 1,500,000   1,060,000 41.5
Minor CapitalTotal ATIP Unit Overhead Costs 10,000  $3,915,000 195,000$2,750,000 (94.9)42.4
TBS/Justice/PCO/Federal CourtTotal Indirect Costs $595,000 $4,510,000 350,000$3,100,000 70.045.5
Total Costs   $15,035,000 $15,270,000 (1.5)
Average Costs per Completed Request 1998-99 - 36,133 Completed Requests 1993-94 - 38,514 Completed Requests
Total Average Total Average
Total Handling Costs $9,695,000 $270 $11,530,000 $300
Total Costs, excluding OPC $15,035,000 $420 $15,270,000 $400
Total Costs, including OPC $19,795,000 $550 $18,970,000 $490

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

Total Salaries

Total Administration Costs

Total costs

Total fees

Total person-years


Appendix F - Access to Information Requests by Source

A Ten-Year Perspective

A ten-year perspective

picture of graph


media

Academic

Business

Oraganizations

Public


Appendix G - Privacy Requests

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

Total Salaries

Total Administration Costs

Total costs

Total Person-years

Total Privacy requests received

Total privacy requests completed



Date modified: