Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional research reportJul 26, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a

Digital Environment: Background and Issues

for Congress

name redacted

Analyst in American National Government

July 26, 2013

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43165

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Summary

All federal departments and agencies create federal records “in connection with the transaction of

public business.” The Federal Records Act, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33),

requires executive branch departments and agencies to collect, retain, and preserve federal

records, which provide the Administration, Congress, and the public with a history of publicpolicy execution and its results.

Increasing use of e-mail, social media, and other electronic media has prompted a proliferation of

record creation in the federal government. The variety of electronic platforms used to create

federal records, however, may complicate the technologies needed to capture and retain them. It

is also unclear whether the devices and applications that agencies currently use to create and

retain records will be viable in perpetuity—making access to federal records over time

increasingly complicated, costly, and potentially impossible.

In recent years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the National Archives and

Records Administration (NARA) reported records management deficiencies at federal agencies.

NARA, which has government-wide records management responsibilities, found 45% of agencies

were at high risk of mismanaging their records. Agencies’ inabilities to comply with federal

recordkeeping laws and responsibilities may make it difficult for NARA to predict future federal

archiving needs because officials may not anticipate the true volume of records, nor will they

know the variety of platforms used to create those records.

The executive branch has taken steps to clarify records management responsibilities and

attempted to improve recordkeeping administration. In August 2012, for example, NARA and the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly released a directive providing agencies with a

framework for managing federal records, including both paper and electronic records.

Yet, challenges remain. Congress may have an interest in overseeing whether agencies are

appropriately capturing and maintaining their federal records. Additionally, Congress may choose

to revisit the laws that govern federal recordkeeping to address the variety of platforms used to

create federal records. Congress may also choose to ensure that such records will be accessible to

the public in perpetuity. Moreover, with the increase in the creation and use of electronic records,

Congress may have an interest in examining whether agencies are taking appropriate steps to

ensure the authenticity and trustworthiness of the electronic documents they create and preserve.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Contemporary Federal Records: The Challenges of Multiple Platforms ......................................... 3

Multiple Platforms ..................................................................................................................... 4

Platforms for Records Creation ........................................................................................... 4

Complications of Records Management with Multiple Platforms ...................................... 6

The Obama Administration’s Recordkeeping Initiative .................................................................. 7

The “Managing Government Records” Memorandum.............................................................. 7

OMB’s and NARA’s Records Management Directive .............................................................. 8

Measuring the Increasing Number of Federal Records ................................................................... 9

Incomplete Data on Federal Electronic Records ..................................................................... 10

The Presidential Records Proxy .............................................................................................. 12

Electronic Records: Policy Concerns and Potential Policy Options .............................................. 14

Agency Activities .................................................................................................................... 15

The Collection and Retention of Mixed Platform Records ..................................................... 15

Ensuring the Trustworthiness of Electronic Records............................................................... 16

Understanding and Preparing for the Risks of Using Electronic Platforms ............................ 17

Financial Resources ................................................................................................................. 17

Tables

Table 1. The Number of Electronic Records Series and Systems Approved by NARA ................ 11

Table 2. Electronic Records Transferred to NARA ....................................................................... 12

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Introduction

In the course of executing their missions, all federal departments and agencies create federal

records. Federal records are defined in the Federal Records Act (FRA)1 to include “all books,

papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials,

regardless of physical form or characteristics … in connection with the transaction of public

business.”2 The FRA requires federal departments and agencies to collect, retain, and preserve

their records—thus providing Congress, the executive branch, and the public with a history of

public-policy execution and its results.3

The FRA, as amended, requires agencies to “make and preserve” records that document the

“organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the

Government.”4 Agencies are to use “standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve

the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate

for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value.”5

Pursuant to the FRA, agencies are to work with the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA) to create records schedules that permit agencies to dispose of records of

temporary value properly and to preserve those with permanent value to the government and the

public.6

In August 2012, NARA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly released a

directive to federal departments and agencies.7 Among other requirements, the “Managing

Government Records Directive” instructed each department and agency to designate a Senior

Agency Official (SAO) “to oversee a review of their records management program.”8 The

memorandum addressed the management of federal records in all formats, but specifically

44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33.

44 U.S.C. §3301.

The FRA does not apply to the records of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the President. Congressional records might

include materials created by Members of Congress as well as House and Senate committees and officers. Additionally,

the floor proceedings of each chamber are considered congressional records. Supreme Court records might include

filings, court opinions, records of verdicts, and transcripts. The authorities and practices governing the collection of,

retention of, and access to these records are beyond the scope of this report. For background on the collection and

retention of presidential records, see CRS Report R40238, The Presidential Records Act: Background and Recent

Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

44 U.S.C. §3101.

44 U.S.C. §3102.

For more information on the laws and regulations that govern the collection and preservation of records generally, see

CRS Report R43072, Common Questions About Federal Records and Related Agency Requirements, by (name

redacted).

The Office of Management and Budget and the National Archives and Records Administration, Managing

Government Records Directive, Washington, DC, August 24, 2012 (hereinafter Managing Government Records

Directive), at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-18.pdf. The directive was

required by a Presidential Memorandum on “Managing Government Records,” which expressed similar ideas and

themes. See White House Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Managing Government Records,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidentialmemorandum-managing-government-records.

Managing Government Records Directive, at 2.1.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

acknowledged the challenges presented by the use of emerging technologies to create and

maintain records.9

Congress may have an interest in overseeing whether agencies are appropriately capturing and

maintaining all federal records. The proliferation of electronic records produced using numerous

digital technologies and platforms may make it costly, time consuming, and technically difficult

for agencies to comply with the FRA. With the increase in the creation and use of electronic

records, Congress may have an interest in examining whether agencies are taking appropriate

steps to ensure the authenticity and trustworthiness of the documents they create and preserve.

Congress may seek to ensure that agencies are collecting and maintaining records in all formats

using methods that will ensure they are accessible to the public in perpetuity.10 Broadly, the

management of federal records in a digital environment may prompt a series of policy questions

for Congress, including the following:

•

Are agencies appropriately collecting and retaining records in compliance with

federal law?

•

Will digital and electronic records created today be accessible in the future?

•

What policies or actions might be needed to ensure that digital federal records are

authentic, authoritative expressions of government deliberation or action?

•

What are the costs to the federal government if agencies are not appropriately

preserving records?

This report provides background and information on the increasing volume of electronic records

and the variety of platforms used to create them. It then presents data on agencies’ increasing use

of electronic media to create federal records and examines the potential implications of increasing

creation and use of electronic mediums, including the complications of mixed platforms, the

difficulties of ensuring a record’s trustworthiness, and understanding and preparing for the risks

of using electronic platforms. The report also details and analyzes actions by the Administration

of President Barack Obama to streamline and clarify agencies’ recordkeeping responsibilities—

with a focus on electronic records.

This report does not address all government records issues, such as the collection, preservation of,

and access to Presidential records.11 This report also does not provide details about the collection

and retention of federal records, generally.12 Related topics, such as the laws governing access to

federal records and meetings, as well as background on federal information classification policies,

This report addresses federal records, generally, with a focus on electronic records—regardless of whether the records

were born digital or were originally produced in a paper format and later digitized. When discussing electronic records,

the report includes any electronic information that would qualify as a record pursuant to the FRA regardless of its

origins. For more information on the FRA, see CRS Report R43072, Common Questions About Federal Records and

Related Agency Requirements, by (name redacted).

NARA’s mission statement includes the following language: “We ensure continuing access to the essential

documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government,” at U.S. National Archives and

Records Administration, “About the National Archives,” at http://www.archives.gov/about/info/mission.html.

For information on the collection and retention of presidential records, see CRS Report R40238, The Presidential

Records Act: Background and Recent Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

For information on agencies’ federal recordkeeping responsibilities, CRS Report R43072, Common Questions About

Federal Records and Related Agency Requirements, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

are beyond the scope of this report, but are addressed in other Congressional Research Service

products.13

Contemporary Federal Records: The Challenges of

Multiple Platforms

The contemporary challenges government agencies face in creating and retaining records

resemble those discussed and debated prior to the enactment of the FRA in 1950.14 The act was

prompted in part by the recommendations of the Commission on the Organization of the

Executive Branch of the Government.15 The commission researched and provided

recommendations on a wide variety of public policies and found that “revolutionary

mechanization, specialization, and duplication in recordmaking and recordkeeping” had prompted

records to “accumulate in admittedly fantastic quantities” that could be “maintained only at

excessive costs.”16 The FRA addressed many of the concerns expressed by the commission and

provided the Administrator of the GSA the authority to “make provisions for the economical and

efficient management of records of Federal agencies.”17 New and emerging technologies have

continuously allowed federal agencies to create and accumulate more records, complicating and

adding costs to record collection, retention, and preservation.

See, for example, CRS Report 97-71, Access to Government Information In the United States: A Primer, by (name

redacted); CRS Report R41528, Classified Information Policy and Executive Order 13526, by (name redacted); CRS

Report R41933, The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Background and Policy Options for the 113th Congress, by

(name redacted); and CRS Report R40520, Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview, by (name redacted).

P.L. 81-754, Title V; 64 Stat. 583. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-152) is

also a foundational federal recordkeeping law. P.L. 81-152 established the General Services Administration (GSA) and

authorized the Administrator of GSA to create surveys of government records, records management, and disposal

practices—and collect reports from federal agencies on identical data; to promote improved records management

practices and controls within agencies; and to report to Congress and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (now the

Office of Management and Budget) on the results of such activities. P.L. 81-152 also moved the National Archives

Establishment (now NARA) to within the newly established GSA. The GSA Administrator assigned the National

Archivist the recordkeeping duties associated with P.L. 81-152. Pursuant to the National Archives and Records

Administration Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-497), NARA returned to independent agency status on April 1, 1985, retaining its

recordkeeping duties.

P.L. 80-162; 61 Stat. 246. The commission was widely referred to as the Hoover Commission, after its chairman,

former President Herbert Hoover.

The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, “Appendix C,” in Records

Management in the United States Government: A Report with Recommendations (Washington, DC: GPO, 1949), p. 4.

The commission made three general recommendations:

•

“That a Federal Records Administration be established and that the existing National Archives establishment

become an integral part thereof;

•

That a law to be cited as the “Federal Records Management Act of 1949” be enacted to provide for the

creation, preservation, management, and disposal of records of the United States Government; and

•

That a minimum program for records management be required in each department and agency of the United

States Government.” (Ibid. p. 7)

More detailed recommendations on how to accomplish the general recommendations were also provided in the

commission’s report.

P.L. 81-754, §5(d); 64 Stat. 585.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Multiple Platforms

Currently, most of the records created by federal agencies are “born digital,” meaning they are not

produced in a tangible, paper-based format. These records are machine-readable, electronic

records—whether produced via e-mail, word processing, social media, websites, databases, or

other applications.18 Digital creation has allowed agencies to create records and provide

information in a variety of new formats, but has also presented challenges to recordkeeping

processes. The variety of applications and platforms used to create, transmit, and store records

may complicate how agencies manage, retain, and retrieve their records. It is unclear, for example

whether the devices and applications agencies currently use to create and retain digital records

will be viable over long periods of time and ensure enduring access to government information.

NARA has stated that it is “evolving its information management strategy” to make its holdings

“available in perpetuity.”19 Existing scholarship, however, suggests that perpetual access to

electronic records is difficult and inherently challenging.20

Current records management approaches—which involve updating digital government

information as formats and platforms change,21 taking “snapshots” of websites or printing emails,22 and using RSS feeds23 or other aggregating technologies to capture electronic content24—

suggest that no long-term solutions comparable to the retention of paper records have been

identified. New recordkeeping technologies may emerge and existing technologies may become

less expensive, which could make electronic recordkeeping less expensive overtime. Conversely,

enduring access to the various formats of digital federal records might, over time, become

increasingly complicated, costly, and problematic.

Platforms for Records Creation

In recent years, the number of platforms—specifically online and electronic platforms—that

agencies employ to create records has rapidly increased. On October 20, 2010, NARA released a

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, The Strategic Plan of the U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration 2006-2016, p. 5 at http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/strategic-plan/2009/nara-strategic-plan2009-2016-update.pdf; and U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Preserving the Past to Protect Our

Future: National Archives and Records Administration 2012 Performance and Accountability Report, pp. 8-9, at

http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2012/par-complete.pdf.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, FY2013 Congressional Justification, February 13, 2012, p. OE16, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-budget/2013-performance-budget.pdf.

Jeremy Leighton John, for example, wrote that unintentional and sometimes unnoticed changes to electronic records

as well as potential document corruption can irreparably modify a record. See Jeremy Leighton John, “The Future of

Saving Our Past,” Nature, June 11, 2009, vol. 459, pp. 775-776. Others with related concerns include Charles Levi,

“Five Hundred 5.25-inch Discs and One (Finicky) Machine: A Report on a Legacy E-Records Pilot Project at the

Archives of Ontario,” Archivaria, vol. 72 (Fall 2011), pp. 239-246; and Laura Carroll, et al., “A Comprehensive

Approach to Born-Digital Archives,” Archivaria, vol. 72 (Fall 2011), pp. 61-92.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Guidance on Managing Records in Web 2.0/Social Media

Platforms, Washington, DC, October 20, 2010, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2011/2011-02.html.

Ibid. See also U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “NARA Guidance on Managing Web Records,”

January 2005, §§3.2-3.3, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/policy/managing-web-records.html#3.0.

Ibid. RSS, or “Really Simple Syndication,” is “an application that provides a mechanism for ‘pushing’ or ‘feeding’

content ... to subscribing consumers on the web.” (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Implications

of New Technologies on NARA Web Guidance,” at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/web-tech.html.)

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Guidance on Managing Records in Web 2.0/Social Media

Platforms.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

bulletin that defined social media and other electronic and online platforms that federal agencies

employ.25 The bulletin said social media and other electronic platforms are created to “connect

people to government and to share information (e.g., providing information or promoting

discussion about the agency, soliciting responses from the public, recruiting personnel, and

providing collaborative space to work in new ways).”26 The bulletin organized the platforms as

follows:

Web Publishing: Platforms used to create, publish, and reuse content.

•

Microblogging (Twitter, Plurk)

•

Blogs (WordPress, Blogger)

•

Wikis (Wikispaces, PBWiki)

•

Mashups (Google Maps, popurls)

Social Networking: Platforms used to provide interactions and collaboration among users.

•

Social networking tools (Facebook, LinkedIn)

•

Social bookmarks (Delicious, Digg)

•

Virtual worlds (Second Life, OpenSim)

•

Crowdsourcing/Social voting (IdeaScale, Chaordix)

File Sharing/Storage: Platforms used to share files and host content storage.

•

Photo libraries (Flickr, Picasa)

•

Video sharing (YouTube, Vimeo)

•

Storage (Google Docs, Drop.io)

•

Content management (SharePoint, Drupal).27

Not all content created using these platforms necessarily qualifies as federal records. NARA

provides agencies with a “non-exhaustive list” of five questions to help determine whether

particular content is a federal record:

1. Is the information unique and not available anywhere else?

2. Does it contain evidence of an agency’s policies, business, mission, etc.?

3. Is this tool being used in relation to the agency’s work?

4. Is use of the tool authorized by the agency?

5. Is there a business need for the information?28

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Guidance on Managing Records in Web 2.0/Social Media

Platforms, Washington, DC, October 20, 2010, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2011/2011-02.html.

Ibid.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, NARA Bulletin 2011-2: Guidance on Managing Records in Web

2.0/Social Media Platforms, Washington, DC, October 20, 2010, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/

2011/2011-02.html.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Answering “yes” to any one of the questions above, according to NARA, likely means the

content qualifies as a federal record.29 In many cases, social media and other electronic platforms

duplicate or “re-post” content that can be found elsewhere in agency records. Such duplicative

content, therefore, may not qualify as a federal record.30

Complications of Records Management with Multiple Platforms

Some challenges related to the federal government’s management of electronic records have been

identified. In 2008, for example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that

“e-mail records were not being appropriately identified and preserved” at certain federal

agencies.31 In June 2010, according to testimony from GAO officials, federal records

management “has received low priority within the federal government,” and that the creation of

“[h]uge volumes of electronic information” posed a “major challenge” in agency record

management.32 GAO noted that poor federal records management could leave the government

“exposed to legal liabilities, and historical records of vital interest could be lost forever.”33 GAO

added that “poorly managed records risk increased costs” for agencies when they search for

records to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or “litigation-related

discovery actions.”34

In May 2011, NARA published a report on agencies’ self-assessments of their recordkeeping that

found 90% of agencies had a moderate to high risk of records mismanagement.35 More

specifically, the report found that 45% of agencies had records management programs with

“moderate risk” and another 45% had records management programs with “high risk” of records

mismanagement.36

In June 2011, GAO found that many agencies lacked a formal policy on how to capture and

maintain federal records created on social media.37

(...continued)

Ibid., p. 2.

Ibid.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Records: Agencies Face Challenges in Managing E-Mail, GAO08-699T, April 23, 2008, preliminary findings, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/119711.pdf.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information Management: The Challenges of Maintaining Electronic

Records, GAO-10-838T, June 17, 2010, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/124883.pdf, p. 17.

Ibid, p. 2. NARA’s bulletin on social media requires agencies to “ensure records management guidance is included in

social media policies and procedures.” The bulletin further encourages agencies to “consult with one another ... so that

records management issues can be addressed prior to rolling out new web 2.0/social media platforms.” (U.S. National

Archives and Records Administration, NARA Bulletin 2011-2: Guidance on Managing Records in Web 2.0/Social

Media Platforms, Washington, DC, October 20, 2010.)

Ibid.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2010 Records Management Self-Assessment Report,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2012, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/self-assessment.html, pp. v-2 - v11. The study included 247 respondent agencies.

Ibid.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures for

Managing and Protecting Information They Access and Disseminate, GAO-11-605, June 2011, at http://gao.gov/assets/

330/320244.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

The Obama Administration’s Recordkeeping

Initiative

The “Managing Government Records” Memorandum

On November 28, 2011, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum on “Managing

Government Records.”38 Within it, the President stated that “well managed” federal records could

help agencies “to assess the impact of programs, to reduce redundant efforts, to save money, and

to share knowledge within and across their organizations.”39 The memorandum pointed to

technology as complicating records management:

[d]ecades of technological advances have transformed agency operations, creating challenges

and opportunities for agency records management. Greater reliance on electronic

communication and systems has radically increased the volume and diversity of information

that agencies must manage.... [I]f records management policies and practices are not updated

for a digital age, the surge in information could overwhelm agency systems, leading to

higher costs and lost records.”40

Pursuant to the memorandum, agencies were given 30 days to designate “a senior agency official

to supervise” the creation and submission of a report on agency plans for electronic

recordkeeping.41

Additionally agencies were given 120 days to create and submit a report to NARA and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) on agency plans for electronic recordkeeping.42 The agency

reports were required to

•

describe the agency’s plans to improve or maintain its records management

program, with particular focus on electronic records;

•

identify any “provisions or omissions” in statues, regulations, or guidance that

“pose an obstacle to the agency’s adoption of sound, cost-effective records

management policies and practices”; and

•

identify policies or programs that could assist the agency’s efforts “to improve

records management.”43

The memorandum directed NARA officials, within 120 days after collection of the agency

reports, to coordinate with the Director of OMB to “issue a Records Management Directive that

The White House, Managing Government Records, Presidential Memorandum to heads of executive departments and

agencies, Washington, DC, November 28, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/

presidential-memorandum-managing-government-records. The memorandum was developed in reference to Executive

Order 13589, which directed agencies to “promote efficient and effective spending.”

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

directs agency heads to take specific steps to reform and improve records management policies

and practices within their agency.”44

OMB’s and NARA’s Records Management Directive

On August 24, 2012, the Director of OMB and the Archivist jointly released the Managing

Government Records Directive.45 The directive’s introduction lists three expected benefits of the

initiative:

•

improved performance and promotion of openness and accountability by better

documenting agency actions and decisions;

•

improved identification of records that have permanent historical value as well as

improved transfer of those records to NARA; and

•

assistance to executive departments and agencies in minimizing costs and

operating more efficiently.46

The directive requires agencies to focus on two goals:

•

requiring electronic recordkeeping to ensure transparency, efficiency, and

accountability; and

•

demonstrating compliance with federal records management statutes and

regulations.

To execute the first goal, by December 31, 2019, agencies were directed to manage and retain

electronic records in electronic formats—as opposed to paper formats—“to the fullest extent

possible.”47 In addition, agencies were directed to manage both permanent and temporary email

records in an accessible electronic format by December 31, 2016.48

The directive reinforced the President’s 2011 memorandum by instructing agencies to designate a

senior agency official (SAO) charged with oversight of recordkeeping and disposal.49 The

directive requires that agency records officers receive NARA certification in records training and

to ensure that all records of permanent utility to the federal government are “identified for

transfer and reported to NARA.”50 Agencies were also instructed to “establish a method to inform

Ibid.

Jeffrey D. Zients, Acting Director of OMB, and David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, Managing

Government Records Directive, Jointly Issued by the Office of Management and Budget and the National Archives and

Records Administration, Washington, DC, August 24, 2012, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

memoranda/2012/m-12-18.pdf.

Ibid., p. 1.

Ibid., Part I, Section 1.1. The memorandum also said agencies should “consider the benefits of digitizing permanent

records created in hard-copy format or other analog formats (e.g., microfiche, microfilm, analog video, analog audio).”

Ibid., Part I, Section 1.2. Pursuant to the memorandum, email systems are to support “records management and

litigation requirements.”

Ibid., Part I, Section 2.1. The SAO was to be designated by November 15, 2012.

Ibid. The Federal Records Act requires agencies to identify and report records of long-term interest to NARA. (36

C.F.R. §1220.18).

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

all employees of their records management responsibilities in law and policy, and develop

suitable records management training for appropriate staff.”51

Pursuant to the directive, by December 31, 2013, NARA is to revise its guidance to agencies on

how to transfer permanent electronic records to NARA. NARA is also required to create new

federal agency guidance “for managing, disposing, and transferring email.”52 Additionally, the

directive required NARA and agency officials to investigate methods to collaborate with the

private sector to find ways to automate record collection and management.53 The directive

required NARA, by December 31, 2013, to describe methods to automate the records

management of email, social media, and other electronic platforms.54 NARA is also required to

improve the current methods to streamline the process for the disposition of records to NARA as

well as the management of temporary records.

Pursuant to the guidance, the Archivist is to hold periodic meetings with the agency-appointed

SAOs to “discuss progress in the implementation” of the directive, and to establish a community

of information technology scholars and legal counsel to propose additional guidance, create

training, and find new electronic records management tools.55

The guidance directs the Office of Personnel Management to “establish a formal records

management occupational series,” which would create specific federal job titles for records

management purposes.56

Measuring the Increasing Number of

Federal Records

A single record can take many forms, such as a sheet of paper, several linear feet of paper, a map,

a digital document, a vast database, or a VHS videocassette. Each type of record requires

particular archival responsibilities and presents unique challenges to ensure its perpetual retrieval.

As noted above, agencies are required to collect, retain, and schedule for disposal or permanent

retention all series of records regardless of format. Agencies may not destroy “or permanently

transfer any record to NARA unless it has been scheduled.”57 The scheduling requirement

provides NARA with an estimate of the records series maintained by each federal agency.58

Ibid., Part I, Section 2.4.

Ibid., Part II, Section A2.

Ibid., Part II, Section A3.1.

Ibid.

Ibid., Section B1 and B2.

Ibid., Section B3.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information Management: The Challenges of Managing Electronic

Records, GAO-10-838T, June 17, 2010, p. 3. For more information about the records management and disposal

process, see CRS Report R43072, Common Questions About Federal Records and Related Agency Requirements, by

(name redacted).

According to NARA, A series “is a group of records arranged according to a filing system or kept together because

they relate to a particular subject or function, result from the same activity, document a specific kind of transaction,

take a particular physical form, or have some other relationship arising out of their creation, receipt, or use, such as

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Incomplete Data on Federal Electronic Records

In its Electronic Records Project Summary Report for FY2005–FY2009, NARA wrote that “[w]ith

the volume and complexity of e-records increasing each year, it continues to be a challenge for

both NARA and [f]ederal agencies to keep pace with the requirements to identify, schedule, and

transfer to NARA all existing e-records.”59

Every year, NARA requests that agencies complete a records management self-assessment. In

NARA’s FY2011 summary of agencies’ self-assessments (the most recent self-assessment

available),60 NARA found that 112 executive- and legislative-branch agencies (of 247 respondent

agencies) operated records management programs at “high risk” of mismanaging their records.61

Additionally, NARA’s summary of the self-assessments found, among other things,

•

most agencies do not have adequate controls for major activities of their records

management programs; and

•

many records management staff have insufficient knowledge and understanding

of electronic records, which leads to the continued implementation of poor

recordkeeping practices.62

NARA, therefore, may not know the true volume of the universe of federal records. Nonetheless,

the data NARA provides on federal agency records demonstrate an increase in agencies’

scheduling of electronic records series.

NARA’s data on federal records demonstrate a trending increase in agency records scheduling

and records transfers, but the information may not be the most precise tool to help NARA predict

the volume of records and the variety of platforms it should anticipate. Some records schedules

provide only information on the records series that agencies maintain, and not the precise volume

of records contained in those series.63 Additionally, records series may not identify the precise

(...continued)

restrictions on access and use.”(U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Disposition of Federal Records: A

Records Management Handbook, p. 41, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/pdf/dfr-2000.pdf.)

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, NARA’s Electronic Records Project, Summary Report FY2005FY2009, p. 13, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/e-records-report.pdf

On June 4, 2012, NARA announced the release of its survey tool for the 2012 records self-assessment. Agencies

were required to provide federal records self-assessments using the tool, by June 29, 2012. NARA announced that it

planned to verify agency responses to the self-assessments and publish a “comprehensive report ... later in FY2013.”

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “2012 Records Management Self-Assessment Opens Today,” at

http://blogs.archives.gov/records-express/2012/06/04/2012-records-management-self-assessment-opens-today/.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2011 Records Management Self-Assessment Report, 2011, at

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/self-assessment-2011.pdf. The self-assessment is one of several

methods that NARA uses to conduct oversight of agencies’ records management programs. Other methods include

inspections, electronic records scheduling reports, and other data-collection actions. In FY2011, 247 agencies (out of

276 who were asked) responded to NARA’s request for information.

Ibid., p. 1. In its examination of responses directly addressing electronic recordkeeping in agencies, NARA found

that a “significant number of agencies do not have ... procedures in place to ensure that electronic records are

retrievable and usable to conduct agency business.” (Ibid., p. 23.)

According to NARA, agencies may include the volume of records in a records schedule. Additionally, agencies may

include the platform on which records are created. Information provided to CRS from NARA via e-mail on June 21,

2013.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

platform used to create the records in that series.64 Moreover, the electronic records transferred to

NARA from FY2005 through FY2012 may be as many as 30 years old—created prior to the

ubiquitous use of electronic platforms. These data, therefore, may not reflect the volumes of

records created and platforms used today.

In June 2010, NARA reported that between FY2005 and FY2009 it approved records schedules

for 2,404 series65 or systems of electronic records, with a general trend toward more approvals

over time. For example, in FY2005, NARA reported 80 approvals of electronic records series and

systems and 794 in FY2009 (see Table 1).66 In 2011, NARA approved schedules for 1,031

electronic records series or systems, the most records schedules NARA has approved in a single

fiscal year.67 Approvals, however, did not always increase over time. For example, in FY2012,

NARA approved 418 records series and systems, which was 613 (59.5%) fewer than in FY2011.68

According to NARA, its FY2012 goal of approving 1,134 records series and systems was not

achieved because it used staff to reduce an existing records scheduling backlog.69

Table 1. The Number of Electronic Records Series and Systems Approved by NARA

FY2005–FY2012

Fiscal Year

Number of Electronic Records Series and Systems Approved by NARA

2005

2006

612

2007

423

2008

495

2009

794

2010

820

2011

1,031

2012

418a

Source: Data for the electronic records series and systems for FY2005 through FY2009 are taken from U.S.

National Archives and Records Administration, NARA’s Electronic Records Project, Summary Report FY2005-FY2009,

Pursuant to NARA Bulletin 2012-03, agencies can provide records to NARA in any form, “paper, audio-visual

formats, or electronic.” See U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “NARA Bulletin 2012-03,” at

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2012/2012-03.html.

According to NARA, “A series of records were accumulated and used together for a specific purpose, during a

distinct period of time, and the records in a series are usually arranged in a particular order.” (See U.S. National

Archives and Records administration, “How Records Are Grouped,” at http://www.archives.gov/research/start/howrecords-grouped.html.

For more information on records schedules and records transfers to NARA, see CRS Report R43072, Common

Questions About Federal Records and Related Agency Requirements, by (name redacted).

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2011, p. 92, at

http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-complete.pdf.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2012, p. 97, at

http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2012/par-complete.pdf.

Ibid. NARA categorizes any record schedule at least two years old as backlogged. In FY2012, NARA reduced its

existing record schedule backlog from 210 schedules to 29 schedules. At the beginning of FY2013, the backlog was 90

record schedules. NARA plans to eliminate the backlog from April 1, 2013, through June 1, 2013, by changing

procedures and approaches to records scheduling, including the creation of “big bucket” records schedules and “media

neutral schedules.” Information provided to the author via e-mail on March 27, 2013, and March 28, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Washington, DC, June 15, 2010, p. 12, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/e-records-report.pdf.

Data for electronic records series and systems for FY2010 are taken from U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2010, pp. 88-92, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plansreports/performance-accountability/2010/index.pdf. Data for electronic records series and systems for FY2011

are taken from U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2011,

pp. 92-94, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2011/par-complete.pdf.

Data for electronic records series and systems for FY2012 are taken from U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2012, pp. 96-99, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plansreports/performance-accountability/2012/par-complete.pdf.

According to NARA, the 418 approved records series and systems in FY2012 represent 37% of the agency’s

goal of 1,134 systems and series to be approved. In its “Performance and Accountability Report, FY2012,”

NARA stated that it has undertaken “a major effort ... to reduce the existing records scheduling backlog.”

See U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Performance and Accountability Report,” FY2012,

p. 97, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2012/par-complete.pdf.

Table 2 provides data on the number of records transferred to NARA from FY2005 to FY2012.

Like the approval of records schedules, the transfer of electronic records to NARA did not

consistently increase over time. NARA received the greatest number of permanent electronic

records transfers in FY2011, with 257.70 FY2005 had the fewest transfers to NARA with 124.

Table 2. Electronic Records Transferred to NARA

FY2005–FY2012

Fiscal Year

Electronic Records Transferred to NARA

2005

124

2006

171

2007

136

2008

186

2009

139

2010

192

2011

257

2012

217

Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, NARA’s Electronic Records Project, Summary Report

FY2005 - FY2009, Washington, DC, June 15, 2010, p. 13, at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/erecords-report.pdf. Data for FY2010 are taken from U.S. National Archives and Records Administration,

Performance and Accountability Report, FY2010, pp. 88-92, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/

performance-accountability/2010/index.pdf. Data for FY2011 are taken from U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2011, pp. 92-94, at http://www.archives.gov/about/plansreports/performance-accountability/2011/par-complete.pdf. Data for FY2012 are taken from U.S. National

Archives and Records Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2012, pp. 96-99, at

http://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/performance-accountability/2012/par-complete.pdf.

The Presidential Records Proxy

Presidential records may be the best indicator of the actual volume of federal records created by

federal agencies. Presidential records, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C.

§§2201-2207), are provided to NARA at the end of each presidential administration (usually

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Performance and Accountability Report, FY2011, pp. 94.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

every four or eight years).71 As a result, NARA has tracked the increasing volumes and varied

electronic formats employed by each administration.

Although presidential records are collected and retained pursuant to a different law than federal

agency records, both categories of records are affected by the same proliferation in platforms and

subsequent increases in volume.72 While the collection and retention of federal agency records

has been inconsistent and challenging, White House officials have testified that many electronic

presidential records are automatically captured and stored by electronic archiving technologies—

a feature many federal agencies lack.73 Automatic capture should generate a more robust and

complete collection of presidential records than one generated by relying on individuals to print

and retain copies of e-mails, tweets, or other electronic records.74 According to NARA, in

FY2011, 80% of agencies captured e-mail records by printing them out and filing them.75 Such a

process may create circumstances that lead to either under- or over-capture of federal records.

Presidential records, therefore, may provide a more accurate measure of the scope and scale of

federal electronic records currently being created as well as what NARA might anticipate for

dispensation in future years.

According to NARA’s 2009 Report on Alternative Models for Presidential Libraries,

“Presidential Libraries … experienced an explosive growth in the volume of electronic records,

especially White House email.”76 The report continued:

Presidential Library holdings in electronic form are now much larger than the paper

holdings. Indeed, the email system for the George W. Bush Administration alone is many

times larger than the entire textual holdings of any other Presidential Library. These

electronic holdings bring new challenges to processing and making available Presidential

records. The sheer volume exponentially increases what archivists have to search and isolate

as relevant to a request, a lengthy process in and of itself before the review begins. Once

review begins, the more informal communication style embodied in Presidential record

emails often blends personal and record information in the same email necessitating more

redactions.

44 U.S.C. §§2201-2207. NARA is to be provided the universe of qualifying presidential records at the end of each

administration. For more information on the Presidential Records Act, see CRS Report R40238, The Presidential

Records Act: Background and Recent Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

The central differences between the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act are the length of time the

agency or office that created the record may maintain custody of the record (Presidents have four or eight years while

agencies can have records up to 30 years) and the authority provided to a former and incumbent President to request

that certain records be withheld from public release (an authority not provided to any executive branch employee

pursuant the Federal Records Act).

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Presidential Records in the New

Millennium: Updating the Presidential Records Act and Other Federal Recordkeeping Statutes to Improve Electronic

Records Preservation, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 3, 2011, at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/5-311_Colangelo_Testimony.pdf.

Automated capture, however, may also lead to an unnecessarily high volume of records captured because redundant

messages would be automatically included.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2011 Records Management Self-Assessment, p. 25, at

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/self-assessment-2011.pdf.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Report on Alternative Models for Presidential Libraries,

Washington , DC, September 25, 2009, p. 25, at http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/reports/report-forcongress.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

In that same report, NARA noted that the Administration of William J. Clinton provided NARA

20 million presidential record e-mails at the conclusion of the President’s eight-year tenure. In

contrast, the George W. Bush Administration provided 150 million e-mail records after his eightyear tenure.77

In June 2010, GAO submitted testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform’s Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives on “The

Challenges of Managing Electronic Records.”78 GAO used the growth in electronic presidential

records to demonstrate that “[h]uge volumes of electronic information” were a “major challenge”

in agency record management.79 GAO also stated that

Electronic information is increasingly being created in volumes that pose a significant

technical challenge to our ability to organize it and make it accessible. An example of this

growth is provided by the difference between the digital records of the George W. Bush

administration and that of the Clinton administration: NARA has reported that the Bush

administration transferred 77 terabytes80 of data to [NARA] on leaving office, which was

about 35 times the amount of data transferred by the Clinton administration.81

On April 25, 2013, NARA’s blog post provided additional details on the records being transferred

to the George W. Bush Library and Museum in Dallas, TX—“more than 70 million pages of

textual records, 43,000 artifacts, 200 million emails (totaling roughly 1 billion pages), and 4

million digital photographs (the largest holding of electronic records of any of our libraries).”82

This amounts to a 3,500% increase in the volume of electronic records created when comparing

one two-term administration to the next—an eight-year period.83

Electronic Records: Policy Concerns and Potential

Policy Options

With the increase in the creation and use of electronic records, and concern about the durability of

those records, the 113th Congress may have an interest in overseeing whether agencies are

appropriately capturing and maintaining their federal records. Additionally, Congress may choose

to revisit the laws that govern federal recordkeeping and disposal to ensure that they include

federal records created on different platforms using diverse technologies. Finally, Congress might

Ibid.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information Management: The Challenges of Managing Electronic

Records, GAO-10-838T, June 17, 2010, at http://gao.gov/assets/130/124883.pdf.

Ibid., p. 10.

A terabyte is about 1 trillion bytes, or 1,000 gigabytes.

GAO, in written testimony, noted that it did not independently verify these reported volumes of records. (U.S.

Government Accountability Office, Information Management: The Challenges of Managing Electronic Records, GAO10-838T, June 17, 2010 at http://gao.gov/assets/130/124883.pdf.)

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Prologue: Pieces of History,” April 25, 2013, at

http://blogs.archives.gov/prologue/?p=12073.

The George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, by comparison, contains 1 million photographs and

10,000 videotapes . See George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, “ FAQs,” at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/

research/faq.php.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

examine whether agencies are taking appropriate steps to ensure the authenticity and

trustworthiness of the electronic documents they create and preserve.

Agency Activities

The new guidelines and requirements for agencies released by the Obama Administration may

make oversight of the implementation of the FRA easier for Congress. For example, Congress

will have a single point of contact for information on an agency’s recordkeeping plans and

records management processes. Each agency, however, may provide the designated senior agency

official (SAO) with different resources, different staffing levels, and different levels of authority

and autonomy. In certain cases, the SAO may not have the resources to appropriately administer

the agency’s records management responsibilities. Some officials, for example, may not be aware

of certain recordkeeping difficulties that exist within components of the agency. Moreover, the

SAO may not have access to all agency federal records, particularly those records with sensitive

or classified information. Congress may choose to oversee whether SAOs are provided authority,

resources, and access within their agencies to make effective changes to their records

management processes—including the authority to require certain agency components to

schedule records systems or the authority to impose particular records management training or

responsibilities for employees.

Congress may choose to enact into law the position of the SAO, thereby ensuring that these

positions will exist beyond a single Administration. On the other hand, Congress may decide that

creation of a senior records management official is not the most effective method of ensuring

compliance with the FRA. For example, GAO has found that agencies have seen mixed results

with the creation of other agency officials, such as chief information officers.84

Congress may choose to continue its oversight of the implementation of the Administration’s

guidance on federal records management. Congress, additionally, could choose to require all

SAOs to meet to discuss best practices and share methods of working through records

management difficulties. Congress could also require NARA, or another agency, to maintain a

website that provides best practices and lessons learned.

The Collection and Retention of Mixed Platform Records

Congress may also need to address the gap between the statutory definition of records and the

practical use of digital content that amalgamates multiple technologies. It does not appear that the

FRA addresses all potential complexities that emerge when agencies create digital content that

provides information using multiple technologies at once.

For example, a June 2011 GAO report found that 23 of 24 major federal agencies used Facebook,

Twitter, and YouTube.85 Social media platforms allow agencies to embed and combine content on

See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Implementing Effective CIO Organizations, T-AIMD-00-128,

March 24, 2000, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/108344.pdf; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Chief

Information Officers, GAO-04-823, July 21, 2004, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-823; and U.S.

Government Accountability Office, Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Role in

Information Technology Management, GAO-11-634, September 15, 2011, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/

585305.pdf.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures for

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

agencies’ websites. The Department of Transportation, for instance, could embed a YouTube video

of a recent advisory committee meeting on its website.86 The website could also include text that

provides context to the meeting and identifies those in attendance.87 Agencies are not required by

the FRA to retain duplicates of federal records in most cases. When considering the integration of

various platforms, however, it is unclear whether placing a record in a new, unique context would

constitute a discrete federal record. A record that layers various electronic platforms may contain

redundant information, but present that information in a different way for a specific purpose that

adds value that could constitute consideration as a separate federal record. Current laws and

regulations may not make clear to records management employees when combining or

repurposing information constitutes a new record. More importantly, it is unclear whether current

recordkeeping software is capable of capturing and retaining all electronic content, including all

website updates.88

Congress may choose to examine whether existing guidance addresses issues that may arise from

integrating multiple platforms to create federal records. If existing guidance is silent or unclear,

Congress may choose to consider legislative options that would address these concerns, or may

choose to task NARA with addressing them.

Ensuring the Trustworthiness of Electronic Records

The increasing use of electronic records also requires agencies to ensure the trustworthiness and

authenticity of the information they create. Agencies need to ensure that their records are

appropriately protected from corruption or destruction. Additionally, agencies need to make

certain that records accessed by the public are accurate and usable. The networks that create and

store federal electronic records must be protected from a variety of risks, including “an inability

to document or validate transactions that occur via an agency web site.”89 NARA provides

agencies with guidance on identifying and maintaining trustworthy websites. According to

NARA, trustworthy records have the following characteristics:

reliability: content is trusted as a full and accurate representation of ... transactions, activities,

or facts;

authenticity: proven to be what it purports to be;

(...continued)

Managing and Protecting Information They Access and Disseminate, GAO-11-605, June 2011, Highlights, at

http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/320244.pdf.

For example, it is unclear under current law whether a YouTube video is its own record (to be preserved

independently), or whether a webpage—which may include embedded content from different sources that might be

records in their own right—must be preserved as a single record. As noted earlier, in many cases, social media and

other electronic platforms duplicate or “re-post” content that can be found elsewhere in agency records.

The homepage for the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, includes a Twitter Feed, links to

“Featured Videos,” and a news box—all of which are constantly updated. See http://www.hhs.gov/.

On June 28, 2013, NARA released a draft version of a bulletin that seeks to clarify the definition of social media for

federal agency recordkeepers and provide agencies with guidelines on how to identify when social media information

qualifies as a federal record pursuant to the Federal Records Act. See U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration, Guidance on managing social media records, MARA Bulletin 2013-XX, Washington , DC, June 26,

2013, at http://blogs.archives.gov/records-express/files/2013/06/SocialMediaBulletin_Draft_06262013.pdf.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “NARA Guidance on Managing Web Records,” pp. 1-7, at

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/pdf/managing-web-records-index.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

integrity: complete and unaltered; and

usability: can be located, retrieved, presented, and interpreted.90

NARA’s guidance suggests that agencies “maintain the content, context, and sometimes the

structure of” their websites to ensure their records are trustworthy.91

Congress may have an ongoing interest in ensuring that agencies are appropriately providing for

the trustworthiness of their records. Congress may choose to hold hearings or pursue informal

oversight mechanisms to determine how agencies are verifying that their e-government initiatives

are protected and that publicly available electronic information is reliable, authentic, has integrity,

and is usable.

Understanding and Preparing for the Risks of Using

Electronic Platforms

Congress may have interest in ensuring that agencies understand and prepare for the potential

risks of creating and retaining on electronic records. NARA’s guidance provides examples of

potential risks associated with the use of electronic platforms. Among these risks are “an inability

to document or validate transactions that occur via an agency web site,” “an inability to

reconstruct views of web content,” and “financial losses due to compromising the citizens’ or

government’s rights.”92 NARA’s guidance states that each agency should conduct a risk

assessment that addresses “the possible consequences of untrustworthy, lost, or unrecoverable

records, including the legal risk and financial costs of losses, the likelihood that a damaging event

will occur, and the costs of taking corrective actions.”93

Congress may choose to ensure that agencies conduct the risk assessments recommended by

NARA. Congress may also have an interest in receiving agencies’ risk assessments to learn of the

potential consequences of mismanaged, damaged, or otherwise lost records. Congress could

choose to have NARA collect these risk assessments and submit a summary to Congress.

Financial Resources

To the extent that Congress believes that a lack of resources leads to poor records management, it

could address the problem through appropriations. According to NARA, however, agencies are

not required to report their recordkeeping costs. It is not clear, therefore, what resources agencies

currently use to administer various recordkeeping duties. Nor is it possible to determine whether

these resources enable agencies to appropriately administer their records. It is also not clear what

it might cost to collect data on recordkeeping costs, nor would it be easy to determine what might

constitute a recordkeeping cost (e.g., storage costs, training costs, staffing costs, oversight costs).

Ibid., pp. 8-9.

Ibid., p. 9.

Ibid., pp. 10-11.

Ibid., p. 11.

Congressional Research Service

Retaining and Preserving Federal Records in a Digital Environment

Congress may choose to require NARA to define what would constitute a recordkeeping cost.

Congress could also choose to require the senior agency officials tasked with records

management duties to report these recordkeeping costs to NARA, which could then aggregate the

data and provide Congress and the public a summary document on agencies’ recordkeeping costs

and how they compare to one another. Such a summary document could inform agencies, NARA,

Congress, and the public as to the resources currently spent on federal recordkeeping—and

whether those resources are enough to appropriately comply with existing statutes, regulations,

and policies. On the other hand, Congress may decide that such data collection and analysis

would be too time consuming and costly and may not yield information on more effective records

management. An agency’s recordkeeping costs, for instance, may not capture the efficient or

creative ways that agencies may be complying with the FRA.

Congress could also consider requiring SAOs to report additional records management data

points—such as total records schedules submitted to NARA, total number of electronic records

submitted to NARA, number of records series that the agency has yet to schedule with NARA, or

creative and cost-saving methods of capturing and retaining electronic records. A more thorough

records management report could provide Congress with more information about the status of the

federal government’s records management. Such data collection, however, would not be without

cost.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in American National Government

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.