What are the implications of FOI for practice in records
management?
[OHP]
Research context
Political rhetoric in the UK, as in many democratic states, makes much of
the need to increase public participation in the political process;
improving public understanding of, and re-establishing public trust and
confidence in, government decision making; increasing transparency,
openness and accountability of public authorities. The UK Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act 2000 came fully into force in January 2005 and
represents the most important UK legislation to date to include records
management guidance for all public authorities.
The Act imposes significant duties and responsibilities on public
authorities to give access to information. To achieve this, 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. Records
management practices underpin a public authority’s ability to comply
with the Act.
[OHP]
This relationship between FOI and the practice of corporate records
management was formally recognised by the UK Parliament a Code of
Practice on Records Management, which states that:
1
“Freedom of information legislation is only as good as the quality
of the records and other information to which it provides access.
[Such rights are of little use if reliable records are not created in the
first place, if they cannot be found when needed or if the
arrangements for their eventual destruction or transfer to an
archives service are inadequate.”]
During the lead up to full implementation in 2005, the theme of good
records management practice was advocated by the Information
Commissioner, who has responsibility to promote the observance of the
Code. The Code was accompanied by detailed guidance from The
National Archives. The Code itself is not compulsory, but it is held to be
best practice. Nevertheless, the Information Commissioner can intervene
in cases where public authorities are found to be failing to meet expected
standards.
Given the emphasis on records management in the UK FOI Act we felt it
was timely to examine what the impact of the Act has been on records
management
services
in
local
government,
three
years
after
implementation. I and my research colleague, Alice Stevenson, ran a
research project at UCL over the past year, funded by the Arts and
Humanities Research Council, which looked at this issue.
[OHP]
The research was structured through these four questions:
(1) How well did records management services prepare for and cope
with the first three years of FOI implementation?
2
(2) What contribution do records management services make to the
ability of public authorities to comply with the Act?
(3) How is the user experience of FOI is affected by the management
of records?
(4) What are the implications of FOI for practice in records
management?
We looked at these questions from three perspectives:
 Records Managers
 FOI policy managers and
 FOI requestors
Our study cohort includes 19 local government authorities in the SouthEast of England and London. We have also conducted a focus group and
11 telephone interviews with requestors to elicit their views.
In this paper I’d like to focus on the last of our research questions: what
are the implications of FOI for practice in records management, from the
perspective of practitioners in local councils?
Background to records management in UK Local Authorities
Although records management as a distinct activity had begun in local
government by the 1960s, there was little perception that the records
manager should have a strategic role until recently. Records management
has developed quickly in the past decade. The Labour administration’s
Modernising Government agenda and e-government target of making all
government
services
available
electronically
by
2005,
led
to
modernisation of public services, and records management was thought
by some to be significant in effecting such changes.
3
Despite this, in 2002 The National Archives expressed “concern that at
present there was little or no coherent records management provision
within many authorities” and the Audit Commission had “evidence from
25 audits that records management is widely undervalued in a range of
local authorities”. Such inadequacies were especially noticeable in the
area of digital records management, in which local authorities “had yet to
make any significant progress”.
[OHP]
So has FOI made any perceptible difference? Freedom of information
was linked closely to records management, yet since the implementation
of the Act the focus in local authorities has been on compliance with the
Act, rather than the records management that underpins compliance.
Nevertheless, annual surveys conducted by the Constitution Unit at UCL
have reported that improvements in records management were a positive
effect of the FOI Act. A quarter of local authorities surveyed in 2007 felt
that FOI had had a positive impact on records management. However, the
same surveys report records management issues (such as difficulties in
locating data) as among the main barriers to compliance with the Act.
Research carried out in Scotland by Burt and Taylor reported that while
FOI “is perceived to contribute to change, it is not a catalyst for change
per se”. Their research suggested that FOI was one factor among many
which are generating “a growing awareness of the importance of
information as a corporate resource” and it thereby lends “new
importance to the development of formal records and information
management policies, systems, processes and procedures within local
government”.
4
It was against this context that we have been undertaking our research at
UCL.
Research methodology
[OHP]
Given the complexity and diversity of the organisation of the local
government sector in the UK we decided that it would not be easily
represented by quantitative measures. We adopted a qualitative approach
in order to explore the many different arrangements of FOI and records
management and the relationship between them, from the perspective of
the respondents in their work context. Semi-structured interviewing was
the main data collection method selected.
Initially, we envisaged that ten interviews would be conducted with
records managers and ten with FOI policy managers. In reality we found
that in many local authorities individuals held dual responsibilities, whilst
in others the roles of FOI and records management were seen in the
broader context of information governance. A total of 22 interviews were
held and fully transcribed.
The rich data was analysed using the qualitative computer software
NVivo, version 7, with which the interviews were coded for themes and
opinions.
Case study background
5
Only five out of the 19 authorities we interviewed had employed a records
manager prior to the passing of the FOIA in 2000, and only a further
seven introduced a records manager after, even though the Code of
Practice advocates the role of the Records Manager as a Corporate
position. The organisation of records management responsibilities was ad
hoc in many of the councils we talked to, highlighting the general lack of
corporate approach to this area. In other cases, it was noted that records
management had lower priority and was given to temporary or short-term
consultants.
The organisation of FOI and records management functions in these local
authorities varies considerably. Within the 19 institutional contexts that
form our sample there are almost 19 different ways of organising these
areas. In three cases, no individual held corporate records management
responsibilities nor was records management a recognised corporate
programme. In some instances whilst there was no formal records
management function, individuals did look after corporate records
management as part of other duties.
In those cases where records management was a discrete function, there
were several different relationships to FOI. In nine of our case studies,
records management was linked specifically with FOI and both functions
worked from the same directorate, sometimes looked after by a single
individual, sometimes as part of a team. In other cases, the two were
placed in separate directorates with varying degrees of interaction and
interdependence between them. Corporate records management had a
higher profile in the organisations where it was in the same directorate as
FOI and, crucially, was also more visible to senior managers.
6
Discussion
[OHP]
Assessing the impact that FOI has had on records management is
complicated by the many other factors that are also currently driving
records management in local councils. This was immediately evident from
our discussions with practitioners who found it difficult to pinpoint clear
examples of instances where FOI, rather than other pressures, had directly
affected records practices.
The most commonly cited reason for records management, in 16 out of
the 22 interviews, was the short-term reactive measures taken in response
to accommodation crises. This is closely linked to business efficiency, as
councils sell off property to save money. Reductions in space also arises
because of employment re-structuring, with new working arrangements
such as ‘hot-desking’, home-working and ‘smart-working’ being
introduced across the sector, creating a need to address records
management.
A second reason for records management developments is data security,
which was mentioned in 13 councils. Yet this may be linked to FOI as
many of the data losses reported in the media are a result of FOI requests
probing this very issue, which in turn have led to evaluation of records
management systems.
So where has FOI influenced records management practices? One
indication is the attention given by authorities to the Code of Practice on
Records Management. Despite the advice in the Code, several councils
7
still did not have a policy, a lead records manager, or even a retention and
disposal policy.
[OHP]
Nevertheless, in general the majority of interviewees were quick to
express the opinion that FOI had had a positive impact upon records
management. However, the direct impact on records management seems
fairly limited and when interviewees were further pressed for examples,
the primary effect was that its profile had increased in the authority. In
terms of rhetoric, records management has a more positive presence than
it did five years ago, but in practice this did not necessarily lead to
observable systemic change:
“It’s more high profile, but the actual way we do things hasn’t
changed”
[Interview 5] Records Manager, County Council
“…people realise there’s a need, but it’s just there’s never enough
time or money to actually get good records management.”
[Interview 11] Records Manager, London Borough
This seems to demonstrate that although FOI may have raised awareness
of records management functions it has not necessarily led to tangible
strategic change. The risk of non-compliance with the Code of Practice
and intervention from the ICO is not considered enough by many of those
we spoke to, although one or two councils had introduced policies and
retention schedules following criticism by the ICO. But perhaps the most
important reason for the muted impact, is the nature of FOI requests.
8
[OHP]
The emphasis on records management in the run up to implementation of
FOI led to an expectation that records would be the focus of requests.
However, our interviewees reported that the majority of requests were for
statistics from current data or were framed as broad questions. Records
were not necessarily what was being sought or supplied and records
management was not used to locate the information. There is thus a
tension between records and information.
“when I look at the type of requests that come in, a marvelous all
singing all dancing records management system wouldn’t necessarily
satisfy us being able to find those answers…. FOI requests to [this
council] at the moment, tend to be to do with stuff that is actually
active now or within the last financial and that is the sort of stuff
which hasn’t even got to the stage where it’s in a records
management sphere.”
[Interview 10] County Archivist, County Council
“Records management wouldn’t really come into quite a lot of the
requests that we see.”
[Interview 16] Feedback & Information Project
Manager, London Borough
[OHP]
Even those organizations where systems and procedures do not represent
good practice, feel able to comply with FOI:
9
“I think we are actually pretty alright at dealing with this stuff. We
don’t seem to have any major issues despite the fact that things are a
bit loose”
[Interview 16] Feedback & Information Project
Manager, London Borough
“I don’t believe we have never not found it despite our not having a
very structured records management system.”
[Interview 22] Information Management Manager,
London Borough
Successful compliance more often depends not upon systems but upon
knowledge management of where information can be found or who
knows the answer. In the majority of cases, therefore, delays in
responding to requests arose not from an inability to find a record in a
system, but from individuals failing to respond to an information request.
The impact of FOI on records management, perhaps, has been more
muted and less intensive than expected.
[OHP]
However, there are indications that records management may become
more important to FOI in the coming years and that the full effects of FOI
have yet to be realized. All those interviewed described how the number
of FOI requests had increased significantly in 2008, and noted that the
complexity of those requests had also increased. Requesters are asking
for more detailed information and thus it is the quality of the information
provided that is clearly of concern and it is in this area that interviewees
felt that records management could make a difference.
10
“The other thing, in addition to what appears to be a broad increase in
the number of requests, … the complexity has increased… They are a
lot more litigious if they receive a refusal notice, they are more likely
to challenge and appeal a refusal notice and the actual requests are a lot
more probing, a lot more detailed as well. “
[OHP]
Views on the so-called ‘empty archives’ or ‘chilling effect’ were mixed
in our study. Three councils reported that there had been no changes to
record keeping practices, while others noted that staff were generally
more careful and “more concise” about what they wrote. Among higher
level policy makers and senior managers a change in record keeping
culture was more perceptible and in three cases ‘not writing things down’
for fear of disclosure was noted.
“We’ve got senior managers who just don’t write anything down any
more. Without any doubt they have learnt that if they put something
in an email that will come back to haunt them so it’s a lot more faceto-face, things jotted down in their own jotter which you never know
if it’s held or not. There is definitely this recognition that if you put
on anything else on the system you ostensibly lose ownership of
that.”
[Interview 11] Data Protection and FOI officer, London Borough
Conclusions
So to conclude, what are the implications of FOI for practice in records
management?
11
From our study it is clear that FOI has undoubtedly promoted the profile
of records management in local authorities, but what this means for the
practice of records management is less clear. Pressures other than FOI are
channelling resources and facilitating initiatives in records management
practice, often under the broader aegis of information management.
Pinpointing the role of FOI in this is far from straightforward.
Nevertheless, there are improvements that can be attributed to it.
Our work so far has thrown some light on the complex FOI-records
management relationship and it is clear that although the questions might
seem to be about compliance with legislation, social and organisational
relationships are as likely to influence the outcome of an FOI request as
formal systems and standards for compliance.
[Final OHP]
12