Macro-review for reclosure

Context

The reclosure team in the FOI Centre have been transforming and improving both the processes and the policy for reclosure over the last few years. The aims of this work included getting information back into the public domain, where appropriate, and increasing transparency on how reclosure works – e.g. updating the reclosure policy and committing to regular publication of statistics and Panel minutes.

A big component of this was assessing the risk; in April 2023, a ‘Reclosure Risk’ paper was presented to the Executive Team. This paper outlined the risk of The National Archives' growing reclosure review backlog (742 cases awaiting reclosure decisions at that time).

This lessons learned exercise focusses on one of the options explored to reduce the number of cases awaiting reclosure decisions: the macro review approach. All cases awaiting a reclosure decision are categorised on The National Archives' catalogue as 'Access Under Review' (AUR).

When a record has a status of AUR, it means it has been temporarily withheld from public access, whilst a re-assessment takes place to identify the presence or absence of potential sensitivities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

The macro review approach involved ‘dip sampling’ (or contents checks) of AUR records where staff had high confidence that those records contained potential sensitivities under the FOI Act. High confidence in the contents of the records was driven by criteria such as the series to which the record belonged i.e. a series of criminal case files concerning serious crimes.

Staff could then have high confidence that such criminal case files would, by their very nature, contain information such as witness statements and police reports which are likely to contain sensitive personal data and distressing crime photographs that would be likely to cause harm to living individuals should that information be put in the public domain.

Only where we could have a high degree of confidence that the nature of the record meant that information would be present and of such sensitivity that would meet the bar from disclosure under the FOI Act, would we make a decision at that macro level to exempt such a record for disclosure.

Any files that did not concern serious crimes, did not contain material typically exempt under section 40 and or section 38 of the FOI Act, or where subject matter expert advice was required were given a ‘low confidence’ status and reserved for a more detailed review.

In 2023, the macro review focused on AUR records relating to criminal cases from the ASSI, CRIM, J, DPP, and MEPO series of records. 267 files from the reclosure backlog were reviewed and presented to the Reclosure Panel in 2023. 263 files were closed in full, and four files were open in full.

In 2024, attention turned to the part of the backlog which consisted of 409 records, from a variety of file series, such as T, BN and PIN files that were placed AUR between 2010 to 2024. By the end of 2024, 214 records were reviewed at a macro level and presented to the Reclosure Panel:

• 177 files were closed in full
• 9 files were open with redactions
• 28 files were open in full

Between 2023-2024, 481 records were reviewed at a macro level; nearly three times the amount reviewed in 2022. Reclosure figures between 2014 and 2024 can be found on the UK Government Web Archive.

Note, the number of records placed AUR continued to increase whilst review work was undertaken. As of January 2025, 178 records were still to be reviewed. Not all records were suitable for a macro assessment and required more thorough, individual reviews.

What we learned

Pros

• The FOI Centre was able to review a large number of files that had been AUR for many years, reducing the overall number of AUR records at The National Archives.
  • In turn, the FOI Centre was able to focus its limited resources on reviewing more complex files where there was lower confidence in the potential sensitivities.
  • Reviewing AUR records means that the catalogue, Discovery, is updated with the applied exemptions and closure period and enables the public to see why a record is closed under the FOI Act and for how long.
  • Throughout the review process, FOI requests could still be submitted, thereby not affecting the statutory rights of individuals to request access to information and allowing for more in-depth review.
• A macro review is less time-consuming and less resource intensive, meaning there is minimal impact on time spent complying with our statutory obligations of completing FOI requests.
• Where the ‘macro’ review approach had been taken but Reclosure Panel members identified records of concern, the Panel requested in-depth individual reviews were undertaken.
• The macro review negates the need for FOI Centre staff to conduct in-depth reviews of large volumes of distressing material as they were only required to confirm the contents of the files, meaning the risk of harm to their mental health and wellbeing was reduced.

Cons

• Several FOI requests and subsequent internal reviews found that files previously re-closed under the macro level exercise could in fact be opened in part or full, upon further in-depth research, or evidence provided by requesters.
• It created a burden on the Document Services Department to produce large volumes of records at one time and a corresponding storage capacity burden for holding these records whilst the review was undertaken. This was resolved by close communication with colleagues and finding solutions to identify available space.
• Due to the increase in resolved reclosure cases, there was an initial increase in queries from the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives, upon their review of closure applications.
• The exercise created a greater administrative burden. For example, closure application forms took more time to complete due to the increased volume.
• Closure periods were based on lifespan assumptions rather than dates of birth or age indicators from the files (if present). This presented a risk that some closure periods may be longer than strictly necessary. A finer review to find the exact ages of individuals would have been more resource intensive and defeated the object of the exercise.
• Lack of triaging files to assess their access status history, for example previous FOI requests determining files could be opened and review of any surrounding background information, meant that some files did not require reclosure.
• As the macro review process by definition allowed us to more quickly review large volumes of records, a situation was created where staff faced intense periods of viewing information about the most serious criminal cases (for example, records relating to infanticide) which could lead to a negative impact on their mental wellbeing.

Conclusion

Overall, the use of a macro level style of review has significantly reduced the backlog of AUR files. This has meant we could turn our focus to reviewing more complex files, whilst also working to make improvements to the reclosure process.

In hindsight, the approach was sometimes complex and created other types of administrative burden. Nonetheless, the macro review for reclosure has proven a useful method for reviewing files efficiently where there is a high confidence in the sensitivities under the FOI Act.

Next steps: Future considerations

The lessons learned exercise has illustrated the need to refine the approach if we want to make this more effective and address the cons that have been outlined. More effective conduct of the review should consist of:

• Clear criteria for records to fall in scope of macro review
• More robust triaging of the records e.g. to account for any previous access decisions
• In terms of closure periods, seeking the ages of individuals when provided in records to make more accurate calculations. Where a file lacks this detail, we will continue to calculate closure periods in line with The National Archives’ guidance.
• Continuing to work with colleagues to manage space, safe handling of documents and resourcing.
• Maintaining one tracker to monitor progress and schedule bespoke meetings to specifically discuss the exercise.
• Utilising new staff resource to reduce the mental and administrative burden e.g. in the completion of closure applications.
• Lastly, the macro review method could be considered as an option for tackling high volumes of review work but not in cases due to lower confidence levels in sensitivities and the greater possibility of redaction outcomes.