Information Legislation & Management Survey 2006

The results of a survey conducted by JISC in association with Universities UK and GuildHE demonstrate that the HE sector is continuing to meet its obligations under a raft of information governance legislation.

The survey conducted between January and February this year reflects institutions' experiences during 2006 and is the second year such a snapshot has been conducted. Although the main focus of the survey continues to be around the Freedom of Information Act, the scope of this year's survey has been broadened to also include the Data Protection Act and the Environmental Information Regulations. All three of which regulate how institutions must respond to requests for information they receive and how they must manage their information. Data for institutions in Scotland was also included this time around.

Looking across the board the figures for 2006 show a marked similarity with those for 2005, indicating that the number, nature and origin of requests submitted under FOI appear to have reached a 'natural level'. Indeed many other areas of the public sector are sure to look at the comparatively low number of requests received (with each institution receiving on average 3 requests per month) with very envious eyes indeed.

Journalists still account for the overwhelming majority of FOI requests submitted, representing very nearly half of all requests where the identity of the requestor is known. The number of requests from commercial organisations has also showed a marked increase on last year as the private sector begin to appreciate the commercial value of information held by the HE sector.

The areas requestors were most interested in are largely in line with 2005 with university management, administration and finance topping the list. Interestingly though 2006 also saw a significant rise in the number of requests regarding estates & buildings (up 99% on 2005) and research related information (up 94% on the previous year). With the amount of new build currently going on in universities and colleges up and down the country it is, perhaps, likely that this new interest in estates and building activity will continue for some time to come.

Regardless of the subject area universities continue to live up to their tradition of openness and accountability. Virtually all information was provided free of charge and the vast majority with no information being withheld from disclosure.

The Environmental Information Regulations introduced alongside FOI in 2005 and included for the first time in this year's survey appear not to be impacting on the HE sector with only a handful of environment related requests being received. The decision to include the Data Protection Act within the remit of this year's survey does, however, appear justified with the Act still having a surprisingly significant impact some years after its introduction. Subject Access Requests submitted under the Data Protection Act accounted for a surprising 22% of all requests received during 2006 and tend on average to take longer per request to resolve than their FOI counterparts with 16% of Subject Access Requests taking over 5 days of effort to complete (where as no FOI requests were reported as taking longer than 5 days of effort to complete). Indications are that the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Information Commissioner share this concern about data protection issues being overshadowed by FOI and will be refocusing their attention on this area. This, combined with the results of this survey would indicate that institutions would be well advised not to forget about data protection and should perhaps take the opportunity to review their compliance measures.

Indeed guarding against complacency all round would seem to be the order of the day. For although all of these results make for comfortable reading, there are still some signs that below the surface all is not running as smoothly as it could and that it would not take much of an increase in the volume of requests to place a serious strain on institutions' ability to comply with the law. The survey shows that the vast majority of FOI requests (79%) took less than 1 day's actual effort to complete and yet 59% of requests are still taking longer than ten days to actually close, with nearly a third taking between fifteen and the maximum twenty days to complete. A similar situation is evident with a large proportion of Subject Access Requests only being completed shortly before their 40 day deadline.

It is difficult to be certain as to what the cause of this discrepancy can be. Given the all round good service offered by institutions reflected in the survey and the small number of complaints made against them it seems unlikely that they are deliberately waiting until the last possible moment to send the information requested. Instead it suggests that certain factors are causing blockages in the system resulting in dead time when nothing more can be done to advance the request's completion.

Time spent awaiting the clearance from management to release contentious information would seem an obvious potential candidate, but this appears not to be the case. Indeed the evidence provided by the survey is that the decision making process actually took less time in 2006 than it did in 2005, possibly as senior managers have become increasingly au fait with the requirements of the Act and their role within it.

Instead the blockage appears to be centred around the process of locating and accessing information. In 2005 44% of respondents reported that this took either an 'extremely' or 'very' long time to complete. In 2006 this figure has increased to 55% making it by far and away the one aspect of answering a request reported as taking the most amount of time to complete.

Devolved organisations such as universities and colleges and without strong corporate records management strategies are always likely to struggle in this regard. Information is often scattered across the institution with little central control and obtaining access to that vital document is often reliant on identifying and locating the individual member of staff with access to it. In these circumstances it is inevitable that delays will be caused as the right person is sought and in a position to respond. Many institutions have already identified these gaps and have started work to address them through the development of records management strategies, systems and processes - not only to meet the requirements of legislation such as FOI, but also to help harness the business benefits that control of internal information brings. The evidence is, however, that there is still significant work to be done in this regard if institutions are to be able to continue to meet their obligations in the future and to realise those benefits.

Our thanks go to all those who participated in this survey.

Steve Bailey
JISC infoNet
March 2007