The culprit this time is the Housing and Social Development Ministry, which typically provides welfare caseload statistics at the end of each month, but has so far failed to release its April report.

Indeed, when visiting the Ministry’s website today (March 12, 10:30am), it’s quite curious to see the regularity with which reports were posted on the last day of each month as this screenshot demonstrates:

According to this pattern, the welfare statistics for March 2009 should have been released on April 30 or shortly thereafter. MacLeod reports that his emails and calls to the Ministry inquiring about the apparent delay in the welfare data have not been returned.

Welfare data were showing large increases in previous months (as Marc pointed out here and the Tyee reported here) and political commentator David Schreck speculates that delaying the release of the latest welfare statistics may be a deliberate move to contain likely negative information before the election (as quoted in MacLeod’s article).

For reference, the previous provincial election was on May 17, 2005 and the welfare statistics release for March 2005 is dated May 11 (bottom right-hand-side of each page in the report). This was later than the usual last-day-of-the-month pattern, but it came a whole six days before the election date.

Whether or not this delay is deliberate or the result of oversight, it is nevertheless an affront on the democratic process. Transparency, which includes data being made publicly available promptly, is an essential mechanism that allows citizens to keep their government accountable. This is particularly important in the wake of a general election, which is our main tool to keep governments accountable in democratic societies.

Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada, both of whom release information that can be politically sensitive, have processes to formally schedule and announce release dates well in advance to prevent any possibility that data be withheld for political purposes. The provincial government should be held to similar standards.

–

2009 release dates for all of Statistics Canada’s data products can be found here. The 2009 schedule of interest rates announcements from the Bank of Canada is here.

A February report from BC’s Information and Privacy Commissioner’s described what he called, “an unacceptable pattern of government-wide failure to respond to access requests in as timely a fashion as it should.”

But the Commissioner’s study grouped both requests for personal information and general information. The FIPA study, which had access to the government’s own FOI data base, looked only at general records.

Requests for general records…are made in order to scrutinize government policies and actions and hold the government accountable for them. When one focuses on requests for general information, an even darker pictured emerges of government non-compliance with the FOI Act.

The FOI act requires government to respond to these requests within 30 working days. FIPA found that between 2006 and 2008 more than half of responses failed to meet this legal requirement. People considered troublemakers by the government were much more likely to have their requests delayed. FIPA reports, “Our analysis found that political parties, interest groups and the media appear to be singled out for special treatment under the Act.” Ministries assign “sensitivity ratings” to FOI requests. The media, political parties and interest groups are much more likely than other groups to have their requests marked as highly sensitive. And highly sensitive requests are almost three times as likely to be delayed as those with a low sensitivity. At an average of 110 days to respond, highly sensitive requests took more than twice as long as low sensitivity requests. According to Professor Alasdair Roberts, the province’s FOI tracking system,

may be the most sophisticated of its kind in North America. It provides numerous details on who is making requests, response times and the eventual outcomes.

As bad as all this may seem, FIPA finds an even worse outcome. Fewer people and groups are even bothering to use the FOI legislation. Requests fell from 2,381 in 2006, to 2,225 in 2007 and then to 1,793 in 2008. FIPA says, “We attribute this to increasing frustration and disenchantment with the many barriers that now characterize the FOI process.” FIPA concludes:

“Over the past 10 years, a government culture has developed that employs every possible tactic to discourage and delay requests for information that it considers in any way “sensitive.” The culture of denial has employed a combination of budget and staff cuts, legislative and policy changes, government reorganization, delaying tactics, excessive use of the Act’s exceptions, and the extension of secrecy to additional government committees.”

The report uses tax data of BC welfare leavers between 2000 and 2005 to see how people have done. Comparing those who left welfare before 2002 (when the government brought in sweeping welfare changes) with those who left after 2002 is very revealing. It turns out that the post-reform leavers were no more likely to find work, their incomes were less than the pre-2002 leavers, and they were more likely to be below the poverty line.

All of this stands in stark contrast to a government narrative that has long insisted that welfare caseloads declined after their 2002 reforms because more people were leaving welfare for work.

For more details, see Andrew’s piece.

The Commissioner is unhappy and he says so in tough language:

The stark fact is that the government’s overall record of compliance with its legal obligations under FIPPA is far from good. Even if they do not expect perfect compliance at all times or across government, British Columbians have a right to expect better than they are getting. They expect their requests for information about government actions and performance will be responded to in accordance with the law. Without timely compliance, the important public policy objectives of access to information – transparent and accountable government – wither.

The Commission says the government is taking 51 days on average to respond to requests not dealing with personal information. The law requires a response within 30 days. The Commissioner does not issue grades to ministries, but he does list the worst offenders. The Office of the Premier, which you would hope would have an obligation to set a good example, is the worst. Only 31% of requests get dealt with in the legal time frame. On average, the Premier’s Office takes 59 days.

Sadly, the situation is much worse than the Commissioner describes. He deals with averages but there are plenty of examples that take far longer than the averages. I have one request that has been outstanding since March 2007. That’s what? About 430 working days so far?

Some agencies fudge the numbers by making partial releases within the timeline. By doing that they are deemed to have responded and it becomes an appeal instead. That starts a separate process not counted in the time lines the Commissioner is talking about.

The appeals are the real time killers. The Commissioner’s Office is understaffed. The appeal period is routinely extended and can take over a year.

What’s that sound you hear? It’s transparency and accountability – withering.