Skip to content

Governance: RTI performance

The following indicator is under consideration for this pilot edition of the Barometer: To what extent do relevant laws, regulations, policies, and guidance provide a basis for collecting and publishing data on the performance of Right to Information (RTI) / Freedom of Information (FOI) processes?

Feedback on draft Global Data Barometer Indicators

You are looking at a draft indicator to be included in the expert survey of the Global Data Barometer. Between now and May 10th we are inviting your feedback on this indicator and the elements it contains. You can provide your feedback by (a) completing the feedback form below; or (b) adding in-line annotations.

Feedback form

You can share your feedback on the Governance: RTI performance indicator here, or make use of Hypothes.is annotations

Show/hide supporting questions

Existence

  • What is the nature of the framework?
    • No framework exists
      Supporting questions: In the absence of a strong legal framework, are there alternative norms or customs that play this role in the country? If so, please explain how. If there are draft laws or regulations not yet in force, but that would provide a more robust framework in future, please provide brief details here.
    • A framework exists but lacks full force of law
      Supporting questions: In the absence of a strong legal framework, are there alternative norms or customs that play this role in the country? If so, please explain how. If there are draft laws or regulations not yet in force, but that would provide a more robust framework in future, please provide brief details here.
    • A framework exists and has the force of law
      Supporting questions: Please identify the framework(s) you have assessed (e.g. name of law(s) or regulations)

Elements

Part 1: Provisions for updates, structure, and openness.

  • The rules/guidance require that data is regularly updated. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The rules/guidance support the collection of structured data. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The rules/guidance support publication of open data. (No, Partially, Yes)

Part 2: Provisions for definitions and fields.

  • The framework requires the collection and publication of data regarding the number of requests submitted and processed. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The framework requires the collection and publication of data regarding how long it took the relevant government agency or agencies to fill requests. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The framework requires the collection and publication of data regarding material withheld and the reasons for withholding it. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The framework requires the collection and publication of data regarding appeals to RTI determinations and their results. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The framework requires that information is linked to the relevant agency, department, or other governmental entity. (No, Partially, Yes)

Part 3: Provisions for robustness.

  • The framework requires a verification process. (No, Partially, Yes)

    Supporting questions (conditional)

    If Partially: Please briefly explain the verification process used, and which parts of collected data the framework requires to be verified and which parts it does not.

    If Yes: Please briefly explain the verification process used.

  • The rules/guidance empower an agency or official to ensure the accurate and timely collection and publication of required data. (No, Partially, Yes)

  • The framework authorizes remedies for noncompliance. (No, Partially, Yes)

Extent

  • How comprehensive, in terms of jurisdiction, is the framework assessed for this question?
    • The framework assessed covers only some selected parts of national or local government.
      Supporting questions: Which parts or locality does this framework cover?
    • The framework assessed covers the national government, but some positions, agencies, or branches may be exempt or the framework may not apply to other levels of government.
      Supporting questions: What parts of government are exempt? What levels of government are not covered?
    • The framework covers the entire public sector.

Definitions and Identification

Alternately framed as right to information (RTI), freedom of information (FOI), and access to information (ATI), most countries around the world have some provision by which members of a public can request information that is held by government. Significant differences exist in terms of which branches of government a request can be made of and what types of exemptions are allowed; further, in some countries distinct frameworks exist at multiple levels of government.

Taking the RTI process as foundational to the open information and data flows upon which much data for public good builds, this indicator examines the transparency of a country's RTI process, as evinced through its performance and administrative data.

Thus, this indicator is based on the presence and strength of legislation, regulations, or policies that govern whether:

  • Information is collected and published regarding the number of RTI/FOI requests submitted and filled.
  • Information is collected and published regarding agencies' response times.
  • Information is collected and published regarding material withheld from requesters, either partially or entirely, and the reasons for that withholding.
  • Information is collected and published regarding appeals to RTI/FOI determinations and the results of these appeals.
  • Information is collected and published regarding remedies or sanctions applied to agencies that have not upheld mandated RTI/FOI responsibilities.

If there are multiple forms of RTI/FOI frameworks operating in this country—for example, at national and sub-national levels—please explain this briefly in the free text justification and assess here the most common domestic form.

If there are significant differences in how you would assess other common forms of RTI performance data frameworks, please explain briefly in the free text justification.

Starting points

What to look for?

Look for evidence that can answer the following questions:

  • Does the framework require that basic administrative data about the RTI/FOI process, such as the number of requests submitted and filled, be generated and published?
  • Does the framework require that agencies, either individually or through a unified system, not only track how long it takes them to fulfill RTI/FOI requests, but also publish that information?
  • Does the framework require that agencies not only track when and why material is withheld from requesters, whether partially or in full, but also publish that information?
  • Does the framework require agencies not only to track appeals to RTI/FOI determinations and their results, but also to publish that information?
  • Does the framework require the publication of data on any remedies or sanctions applied to agencies for not upholding mandated RTI/FOI responsibilities?

National and sub-national considerations

In some countries frameworks that govern RTI/FOIA performance data have been established by individual states, regions, or cities.

To assess countries where such frameworks are organized sub-nationally, researchers should select the strongest examples of sub-national practice, and then indicate whether this is an outlier or an example of widespread practice.

Right-to-information practices are a key part of transparency and accountability initiatives that support members of a public in assessing whether and how consistently public officials use political power for the common good. This right to access the information that public authorities hold is recognized by the special mandates for the UN, OSCE, and OAS and connects directly with SDG 16.10.

When RTI practices function well, they support oversight, reduce information asymmetries, and open a dialogue between members of the public and public officials. However, the quality, comprehensiveness, and attention to performance of these laws vary. Further, in practice, a host of obstacles may impede the RTI that legislation lays out, with regard to the timeliness of response, inappropriate use of exemptions, difficulties in contesting decisions—even lack of appropriate staffing and technical expertise among the relevant record officers can be a critical de facto impediment.