PLANS TO INCREASE SYSTEMATIC DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW AT NARS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87-00181R000100080002-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 1, 2010
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 14, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Sail
~!OUfIN~ l `TIIAN~M11'!`AL. 15 a y '1984
DD 0IS
alNaa f/~y117tiNi ItiaAlltgNow!
D/OIS.
c) cQ~
Ihr Corydon
For Your Information
N~LS
is~ Q,&4
Note and Return
R~Pb
Sae Me nalture_
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of apps, concurrences, disposals,
dearanoss? and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org symbol, Apnq-/Foal) RQom No.-Bldg.
Phone No.
soot-1o2 OPTIOt4 j FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
FracNb.dby oM -
* GFO : 1981 0 - 361-529 (148) FPMR (41 CFit) 101-11.206
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
14 May 1984
MEv RANDUM FOR: Director of Information Services
FROM: Chief, Classification Review Division
SUBJECT: Plans to Increase Systematic
Declassification Review at NARS
1. On 11 May 1984, Mr. Alan Thompson, Chief of the Declassification
Review Division at NABS, provided Chief, CRD with copies of the Records
Declassification Task Force Report dated 30 March 1984 (attached) and a
letter from the Archivist of the United States concerning the implementation
of the recommendations in that report (attached). The message that
Mr. Thompson wanted CIA to have was that the resources devoted to the Declas-
sification Review Program at NARS will increase by ten persons in FY 84, by
another 20 persons in FY 85, and by still another 30 persons in FY 86. This
will bring the Declassification Review Division at NABS up to 102 persons,
which will dramatically increase the productivity of the NABS Declassification
Review Program. How these additional resources will be used has not been
decided. They might be used to review material requested by researchers,
thus enabling NABS to widen the amount of material responsive to a researcher's
request, or they might conduct a Systematic Declassification Review Program as
they did in the past. In either case, these personnel increases will bring
the program back to the levels employed during E.O. 12065 which will require
additional support from other national security agencies. Mr. Thompson wanted
CIA to be aware of the anticipated increases.
2. NARS does not review intelligence files until they are 50 years
old, which means that they will not be reviewing such files for many more
years to come. Nevertheless, there are many other files which contain
information of interest to CIA. For example, the State files for the period
1950-54 contain information of interest to CIA. These are being reviewed
jointly by State and NABS and they hope to complete this review by March
1986. If the review is not completed by that date, NABS plans to continue
on its own to complete the review. They also hope that State will agree
to continue the same arrangement for the files 1955-59. Some of the files
from the 1950-54 period that remain to be reviewed and may contain infor-
mation of interest to CIA are Department Log files such as one titled "The
Embassy in Moscow," and another titled "Guatemala."
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
U-N-C-L-A-S-S-I-F-I-E-D
3. In the past when NABS had 100 employees doing systematic declas-
sification review, it required teams of two or three CRD reviewers going
one day weekly to NARS and to the Washington National Records Center to
keep abreast of the work load. It can be expected that the same level of
support will be required in the future. The Agency's policy has been that
we want to review all information of interest to CIA. If we are to maintain
this policy, we may have to increase the level of support to NABS over the
next few years.
Chief,
Classification Review Division
Attachments;
As Stated
2
U-N-C-L-A-S-S-I-F-I-E-D
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Services and
Administration Records Service Washington, DC 20408
Date :
Reply to
Attn of :
9 MAY 1984
Archivist of the United States - N
Records Declassification Task Force Report
Assistant Archivist for the National Archives - NN
To Assistant Archivist for Program Support - NA
Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries - NL
After carefully reviewing the report (copy attached) and recommendations of the
task force on the records declassification program, I am directing that the
following actions be taken with all due speed:
1. NN is to establish systems and procedures for maintaining accurate
information on classified, accessioned holdings and on the classification
status and level of projected accessions.
2. NN is to instruct all custodial units that security classification shall
not be-used as the sole factor for delaying the accessioning of permanently
valuable records. Additionally, NN is to insure that there is continued close
cooperation between NND and the custodial units in planning and executing
declassification and archival projects which impact on the systematic
declassification review program.
3. NN shall develop a plan for informing constituent groups of the series of
records which will be systematically reviewed for declassification. The plan
shall provide for informing such groups in sufficient time so that they have an
opportunity to comment on the declassification plans.
4. NN is to work with EPSN to develop ways of attracting and maintaining a
stable, productive workforce for the declassification program. Also NN should
investigate the feasibility of hiring NND personnel with a Secret clearance and
having them work only on records classified through the Secret level.
5. Working with NA, NN is to begin increasing staff resources in FY 84 with
the. objective of increasing the staff to 102 FTE in FY 86. NN shall request
this level of resources in the FY 86 budget. A minimum of 10 positions shall
be added to the NND staff in FY 84, and an additional 20 positions shall be
added in FY 85. These increases are to be over and above the control totals
for the Office of the National Archives.
I would like to receive your plans for implementation of the above by May 18,
1984. I look forward to a re-invigorated systematic declassification review
program and feel confident these actions will result in that end.
ROBERT M. WARNER
Archivist of the United States
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 ? Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
General
`Services National Archives and
Administration Records Service Washington, DC 20408
Date
Reply to
Attn of
MAR 3 164
Office of Program Support (NA)
Records Declassification Task Force
Archivist of the United States (N)
Report
Attached is the task force report on the records declassifi-
cation program. The report makes several recommendations
designed to improve the program and eliminate the problems
associated with staffing. Most important, however, is the
recommendation to restore the program to its FY 1981
resource level to ensure that NARS meets its responsibili-
ties under Executive Order 12356 to respond to special
requests and to systematically make records available for
research.
09-
TEVEN GARFINKEL Z)
FERRIS STOVEL (NCW)
-~LccL~ ~c, / 1 7 r
RICHARD BOYLAN ( NM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
National Archives and Records Service
March 30, 1984
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary--------------------------------- I
Background---------------------------------------- 1
History of the Program---------------------------- 1
Records Declassification Program
Since FY 1981------------------------------------- 3
Task Force Review--------------------------------- 7
Findings and Recommendations---------------------- 7
Workload assessment------------------------- 7
Policy issues------------------------------- 9
Records Declassification Priorities--------- 10
Personnel Turnover and Staffing------------- 12
Procedures/Organization/Location------------ 15
Resource Levels and Funding----------------- 19
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Executive Summary
Background
The Task Force review focused on the records declassifica-
tion program since 1980, with particular emphasis on ways to
increase the amount of records reviewed for declassification
and the program's ability to meet the requirements of
Executive Order 12356.
Issues evaluated by the Task Force included 1) the backlog
of records to be reviewed and the impact of future
accessions; 2) policies relating to accessioning classified
records and declassifying arranged versus unarranged
records; 3) methods for establishing declassification
priorities; 4) personnel turnover and staffing alternatives;
5) declassification procedures, organization and location;
and 6) funding levels for the declassification program.
Findings and Recommendations
1. The task force found that NARS did not have complete
information on the volume of material in NARS requiring
declassification review. Consequently, a general survey was
done which indicated that over 53,000 cubic feet or 133.9
million pages require review. The task force recommends
that the information be kept up to date and that NND be
infoxmed when changes occur to permit realistic
declassification program planning.
2. Policies relating to accessioning declassified records
and the declassification review of arranged versus
unarranged records were found to be inconsistent or not
clearly defined. In some cases the declassification status
of records affected the decision to accession them. Also
past efforts to declassify records in advance of arrangement
work created problems when subsequent arrangement negated
much of the declassification effort. The task force
recommends that a consistent policy be established in NN to
preclude future problems.
3. Currently, declassification priorities are established
based on staff judgment concerning anticipated research
interest. The task force found nothing wrong with this but
recommends that various methods be tried to involve
constituent groups in the priority setting process so that
NARS choices would be confirmed or appropriately modified.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
4. Chronic personnel turnover and staffing problems are
believed by the task force to be one of the most serious
impediments to a stable, productive program. The task force
recommends staffing alternatives that might allievate some
of the problems of the past in future staffing efforts.
These involve a mix of different appointments and the use of
secret instead of top secret security clearances for some
personnel.
5. The task force reviewed current procedures, the
organization of the program, and the location of work
primarily in Washington and concluded that no changes were
necessary. While moving a major portion of the program.to a
more attractive employment area seemed desirable initially,
there are simply too many problems to make it practical.
The task force recommends that NND remain a separate
division to continue to give the program the necessary
visibility.
6. Current resource levels are clearly inadequate to enable
NARS to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12356. The
task force found that aside from the State Department
project, which is two thirds reimbursable, very little
systematic review is being done. The task force recommends
that the resource level be restored to the FY 1981 level.
This would permit at least 5 million pages to be
declassified each year, which should be sufficient to meet
rese4rch demand. A follow up evaluation of the program at
the increased level should be made in FY 1988, to verify or
recommend changes in the resource level.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Records Declassification Task Force Report
Background
On December 23, 1983, the Archivist established a task force
to study the National Archives and Records Service (NARS)
Records Declassification program. The purpose of the study
was to make recommendations on methods for increasing the
amount of records reviewed for declassification and on the
appropriate resource level for accomplishing the increase.
The task force consisted of James Megronigle (NA) (Chair),
Steven Garfinkel (Z), Ferris Stovel (NCW), and Richard
Boylan (NNMF). The task force review concentrated on the
Records Declassification Program since the 1980 GAO study
entitled "Systematic Review for Declassification of National
Security Information--Do Benefits Exceed Costs?" In order
to put the task force findings and recommendations in the
proper context, however, the following is a brief history of
the program and a discussion of recent issues and events
leading to this review.
History of Program
Discussions were first held in 1970 among the representa-
tives of the National Archives and Records Service, the
State Department and the Defense Department on the subject
of the declassification of records and making such records
available for public use. The enormous volume of classified
records, which mostly related to World War II, necessitated
a change in the then existing procedures for declassifi-
cation. The prevailing review process required that each
page of material be examined, certified, and stamped
individually. This method of review was too costly and time
consuming given the volume of classified records created
since 1940. Great Britain's announcement in 1971, that all
except the most sensitive documents of that country through
the end of 1945 would be open to the public also served to
spur the U.S. to begin a systematic records declassification
program.
Executive order 11652, dated March 8, 1972, established
this program. The guidelines generally required the review
for declassification of all permanently valuable classified
material in the National Archives as it became 30 years old.
Executive Order 12065, dated July 28, 1978, replaced
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Executive Order 11652, and required the systematic review
for declassification of all permanently valuable classified
material in the National Archives and other agencies as it
became 20 years old. One exception was foreign government
information which was to remain classified until it became
subject to systematic review when 30 years old.
Shortly after the issuance of Executive Order 12065, GAO
undertook an audit of the records declassification program.
The draft report recommended that the Executive Order be
modified to require that only those records be reviewed
which are specifically requested by the public. This change
according to GAO would improve responsiveness and save money
without changing the policy of openness in Government. NARS
found the following major shortcomings with the GAO report:
(1) the failure to address adequately the benefit of the
public policy of open government as a product of systematic
review; (2) the conclusion that FOIA and mandatory review
procedures of the Executive Order were adequate substitutes
for systematic review; and, (3) the failure to consider
alternative and less drastic solutions to the problems
identified in the report before recommending abolishment of
systematic review.
NARS agreed with GAO that there was little chance that
systematic review for declassification of all 20 year old
classified records would be completed according to the
timetables of the Executive Order. NARS also revised its
workload reporting system to capture data in categories
suggested by GAO.
The final GAO report recommended that the Executive Order be
modified to permit systematic review for declassification of
those records requested by the public and those which the
Archivist anticipated would be requested. The report also
noted the effect that high personnel turnover had on the
program. It took employees about two years to become
proficient in doing declassification reviews and most of the
turnover occurred within the two year period. A large part
of the staff had to be constantly trained and have its work
closely reviewed to ensure accuracy. This led to a decline
in productivity. New staff members could not review any
classified material until a Top Secret security clearance
was obtained, which delayed filling vacancies by about four
to six months. The GAO report identified 230 individuals
granted Top Secret clearances of whom 211 either resigned
shortly after beginning or transferred to other NARS
divisions.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Table I shows the budget, staffing and workload
accomplishments from the start of the program in FY 1973
thru FY 1983. Also shown are estimates for FY 1984 and FY
1985. It should be noted that no siginificant increase in
resources was allocated to the program to meet the 20 year
review requirement set by Executive Order 12065. The 1979
to 1980 increase was largely due to the allocation of
Standard Level User Charges (SLUC) to the programs in NARS
and did not represent a significant increase in the program
dollars available. FY 1980 and 1981 did, however, represent
the peak years in the declassification program. Approxi-
mately $200,000 and 8 FTE in each FY in Table 1 are
associated with the declassification of Presidential Library
Materials.
Records Declassification Program Since FY 1981
Executive Order 12356 issued on April 2, 1982, attempted to
correct some of the problems with Executive Order 12065 as
addressed in the final GAO report. Under Executive Order
12356, NARS responds first to requests for records made
under the Freedom of Information Act and the mandatory
review provisions of the Executive Order. Remaining
resources are devoted to systematic reviews for
declassification of records utilizing executive department
agency guidelines provided to the Archivist.
The overall program approach and the guidelines do not
differ greatly from those in force under E.O. 12065 except:
(1) the guidelines are for the systematic review of US and
foreign government information in records 30 years old or
older, and (2) there are a number of new categories of
information identified for agency determination, such as
counter intelligence/ counter-terrorism, protection of
officials, confidential sources, space systems, ballistic
missile defense information, and nuclear-powered surface
ships or submarines.
These additional categories are the result of the change in
subject matter content in the more recent records of the
1950's. Because these records are more difficult to review,
the simple process of bulk declassification which so
efficiently handled nearly half of World War II and many of
the early coldwar records is usually not possible.
Consequently, most records created in the 1950's require
page-by-page review and the incident of documents withdrawn
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
TABLE I - Records Declassification Program
(Source: GSA Budget Digest and
FY 1985 Congressional Budget)
Obligations
Workload
($000)
FTE
Pages Completed (000's)
1973
780
57
30,000
1974
1011
83
45,542
1975'
1282
95
63,000
1976
1281
101
56,500
Transition Qtr.
432
24
12,500
1977
1377
87
40,000
1978
1519
97
38,300
pages (pp)
examined
class pp.
examined
declass
1979*
1496
81
35,500
16,900
15,500
1980
2217
95
82,400
17,700
17,500
1981
2319
102
33,200
10,800
10,200
1982
1283
46
14,634
3,883
3,634
**reimbursable
162
16
101
58
53
1983
936
31
8,200
2,000
1,900
**reimbursable
310
16
1,700
1,000
900
est. 1984
910
37
2,500
1,300
1,100
**reimbursable
345
19
1,500
1,000
800
est. 1985
930
37
2,400
1,200
1,000
**reimbursable
359
19
1,500
1,000
800
*Funds for FY 1979 forward do not include the Information Security
Oversight Office.
** All obligations, FTEs, and workload prior to FY 1982 were funded
by direct appropriation--the reimbursable amounts are earned according
to the terms of an agreement with the State Department.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
from automatic release has more than doubled. Unlike
Executive Order 12065, which required the systematic review
of all older records, the directive implementing E.O. 12356
directs the Archivist to establish priorities for systematic
reviews based on the degree of research interest and the
potential for declassifying a significant portion of
information. Therefore, those records of known and
anticipated research interest are given first attention in
the program for systematic reviews. Those records very fre-
quently contain categories of information which potentially
are of continued sensitivity and thus require very careful
review and extensive coordination with agency subject matter
experts. These require additional steps and the proportion-
ately increased incidence of withdrawal of documents from
the files effectively slows the rate of review. Most agree
that the process has become progressively more difficult,
due to the complexity of the material and guidelines.
Far and away the other major cause of the decline in the
amount of records reviewed, however, is the decrease in the
FY 1982 budget and the resulting reduction-in-force. The
reduction-in-force required releasing employees in the order
of their service time in government. Those with the least
amount of service lost their jobs. The net result was that
those programs whose staff had the fewest years of service
were affected more by the reduction-in-force in comparison
to those programs with staff with more years of service.
The records declassification program was one such program
that had a staff with relatively fewer years of service due
to the higher turnover rate in the program. In establishing
its budget cutting priorities, NARS decided not to adjust
for this disproportionate effect of the reduction in force
by shifting resources from other hard hit programs. As
Table I shows, in FY 1981, the records declassification
program used 102 FTE, 8 of which were in the Presidential
Libraries, and in FY 1983, the first year to show the
annualized effect of the reduction-in-force, the records
declassification program used 31 FTE, 8 of which were in the
Presidential Libraries. The picture is even more bleak
since of the 31 FTE in FY 1983, 8 were committed to work on
the State Department project as part of the agreement which
accounts for the reimbursable earnings to pay for the 16
reimbursable FTE.
A true comparison of the program can be made by excluding
Presidential Libraries' FTE and reimbursable agreement
committed FTE. This results in 94 FTE in FY 1981 vs. 14 FTE
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
in FY 1983. Of the 14 FTE in FY 1983, 7 are engaged in the
review of records requested by researchers and to FOIA and
mandatory review requests, 3 are engaged in program adminis-
tration, management, and clerical activities, leaving only 4
to be engaged in systematic declassification review efforts.
This is the current state of the program which led to a
letter from the White House calling for a speeding up of the
declassification program, and continuing interest and
criticism from the public including researchers and the
American Historical Association. William P. Clark, who was
then President Reagan's National Security Advisor, wrote on
October 11, 1983 of the criticism the Administration has
been receiving from the media, historians and others
concerning the decline in the program for systematic
declassification review of government records:
A well managed systematic review program, at the
National Archives and Records Service, even if it
requires somewhat increased funding, can be a much
more cost efficient means to declassify historically
valuable information than either Freedom of Information
Act or mandatory review procedures. In addition,
successful accomplishments in this review program will
reflect well upon the National Archives and Records
Service, the General Services Administration, and this
Administration as a whole in keeping with the purposes
of the President's Executive Order: to classify only
that information requiring national security protection
and to declassify any documents that do not require
such protection.
Samuel R. Gammon, Executive Director of the American
Historical Association raised his organization's concerns in
a letter dated August 3, 1983 to the Information Security
Oversight office concerning the decline in systematic
declassification review.
Of particular interest to us is the dramatic drop in
systematic declassification reviews during the previous
two years, which contrasts with the rising tide of
mandatory review requests. Although the two functions
are not integrally linked there is a connection. Our
particular concern as historians and as tax payers is
to the implication of declining systematic review.
That means a steadily growing pile of classified papers
and a consequent swelling budget for more four-drawer
combination safes and bar-lock cabinets.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
The concern of the American Historical Association is also
shown in a statement on legislation concerning security
classification which advocates many changes in the current
security declassification system.
Most significantly, however, in a March 23, 1984 letter to
the Director of ISOO, President Reagan specifically
addressed systematic review as an aspect of the information
security program most in need of attention. A copy of that
letter follows this report.
The task force study of the records declassification program
was based on the history of the program and these recent
issues.
Task Force Review
The task force review focused on those issues which had a
direct impact on NARS ability to comply with Executive Order
12356. These included 1) a determination of the backlog of
classified records over 30 years old in NARS holdings and
the anticipated future classified accessions, as well as the
manner in which the information is maintained and used;
2) NARS policies relating to the accessioning of classified
records and the declassification of arranged versus
unarranged records; 3) methods for determining
declassification priorities; 4) personnel turnover,
alternatives for declassification staffing and clearance
requirements and their effect on staffing; 5) declassifica-
tion procedures, and organization and location of the
program; and 6) prospects for additional reimbursable
projects and funding levels for a declassification program
that meets the goals of Executive Order 12356.
The following sections outline these issues, and discuss
the findings and recommendations concerning them.
Findings and Recommendations
1. Workload Assessment
The task force review indicated that NARS did not have very
good control over data concerning either the classified
holdings currently in NARS custody or very good estimates of
the volume of classified materials to be expected in future
accessions.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
For over 11 years the Records Declassification Division
(NND) has made various attempts to identify the universe of
material requiring declassification attention. Continuous
changes in the records holdings of the custodial units,
however, have often made obsolete the information generated.
NND, starting in 1983, annotated all NARS A-1 printouts for
classified or formerly classified material, thereby gaining
administrative control over records described at the
A-1 level which have been accessioned by NN and which either
have been declassified or will require declassification
review action.
The A-1 system, however, only covers 40% of NN's holdings.
Because the A-1 data were incomplete, the task force
requested that NND and the custodial units holding
classified records survey those records not covered by A-i.
Although the task force requested that the survey not
attempt to locate every series, the various units were able
to generate information on the declassification status of
all NN accessioned records. The results of the survey are
contained in the appendix. The estimated volume of material
in NARS custody over 30 years old which must be examined is
over 53,000 cubic feet or 133.9 million pages.
With regard to future accessions, during the next 30 years
NN regions will probably accession some 400,000 cubic feet
of records. Based on current FRC holdings in the regions,
50 percent of the permanently scheduled records are U.S.
District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals records. Another
20 percent are Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,
Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Highway Administration, and
National Park Service. So approximately 70 percent of the
records should not contain any classified information.
Where a classification problem might arise would be in such
records as the U.S. Coast Guard (5%), Army Commands (4%),
Air Force Commands (3%), Army Corps of Engineers (3%), and
the Atomic Energy Commission (2%). Only a small portion of
these will be classified. Presently the amount of material
classified and scheduled as permanent in the regions is
negligible, 2.5 percent of regional holdings. If 13,000
feet are taken in annually by the regional archives, at most
325 feet will be classified. This amount will not burden
regional operations.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
The Central office situation, however, is different. During
the next 30 years NN Central Office will probably accession
728,000 cubic feet, or over 24,000 cubic feet a year. With
25 percent of the permanently scheduled records in the WNRC
classified, one could estimate that 25 percent of the
permanent records accessioned will be classified. If that
is the case, 6,000 cubic feet a year will be classified.
This influx will have a substantial impact on workload.
Recommendation 1
All future A-i input should also be annotated to include
declassification status. NN should revise GSA form 6710A to
include in the lower right corner a block to be checked if
classified information is present. NN should issue an
instruction to unit heads to notify NND of all classified
accessions, accretions, transfers, disposals, reallocations,
or other actions, such as planned future accessions--whether
scheduled or deferred, so that NND can monitor data on
future declassification work to be performed. Absent
constant adherence to such a policy, NND will not be able to
maintain control of the information necessary for efficient
planning and operations.
2. Policy Issues
While the volume of classified material in NARS custody over
30 years old as well as what can be anticipated in future
years presents the greatest problem for NARS in carrying out
its responsibilities, other policy related issues appear to
be causing some problems. The first relates to accessioning
policy. The task force found that there is no consistent
policy among the NN custodial units for accessioning
classified records. Some units, accession records based
solely on a determination of permanent value. Others also
consider whether the files can be declassified under
existing guidelines. Still others, do not normally
accession classified records. NARS is responsible
for accessioning permanently valuable records when they
become 30 years old. If they are permanently valuable,
their classification should not be relevant.
An inconsistent policy regarding accessioning hinders NND
planning, and will make it difficult to determine an
appropriate level of resources to address both the current
and future workloads.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
The second problem relates to declassification policy with
regard to unarranged records. In the past, when NND had a
large staff, records were reviewed for declassification
irrespective of whether they had been arranged. The results
of this practice were often costly. Some records later
determined to be disposable were reviewed. Some were later
rearranged in an order not reflected in declassification
project review sheets, sometimes to the extent that all
declassification control was lost. Intermixing documents
from two or more declassification projects in a single box
also mandated that every folder be stamped with the
appropriate declassification project number as opposed to
just simply to labeling the box itself with the single NND
project number. NND can precede custodial units,
but only when files are relatively homogeneous and the
amount of rearrangement to be done minimal. Custodial
units, of course, would retain the final responsibility for
determining what unarranged files NND may review. A minimal
expenditure of effort at the outset would save NND literally
hundreds of hours at a later date.
Recommendation 2
NN should accession records based solely upon a determina-
tion of permanent value, and not refuse to accession records
because they are classified. NND should undertake
systematic declassification review on unarranged records
only'after consultation with the appropriate custodial unit
and after examination of the records to determine the degree
of arrangement required.
3. Records Declassification Priorities
The GAO audit of the records declassification program in
1980 concluded that NND should only review-on a systematic
basis those records requested by or likely to be requested
by researchers. Similarly EO 12356 mandated that research
interest be given priority consideration in determining
systematic classification review projects. Given that the
sheer volume of material precludes declassification of all
records over 30 years old systematically, researcher demand
should be the primary determinate in scheduling declassifi-
cation review.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Methods of determining researcher demand vary widely. NND
monitors usage of record groups of specific series via the
FOIA/Mandatory/Special Logs; the NN staff, using different
methods in different units, tracks researcher demand via
reference service slips, and conversations and correspond-
ence with researchers; and the staff generally keeps abreast
of reseracher trends through professional contacts. The
primary ingredient in all of these has been and continues to
be the judgment of the NARS professional staff. It might
be possible, with the expenditure of many staff hours, to
develop a more objective method. At this point, however, we
do not believe that the results would differ significantly
from current procedures for developing such planning
information.
While we do not question the method, there are ways to
verify the choices. It should be noted that the appraisal
task force also addressed "researcher interest". That
task force, while not disputing the priorities set by
the professional staff, noted that it might be worthwhile to
run a test to attempt to quantify interest and then to
compare the results with the impressions held by the staff.
If such a test is run it should incorporate declassification
project planning priorities as presently developed.
Constituent groups have frequently expressed interest in the
declassification process and could provide advice on
researcher demand/interest to be used in setting priorities.
NN could seek the opinions of the NARS constituency in
determining future priorities. For example, printing the
NND yearly declassification priorities plan in Prologue and
inviting reader reaction to it could be one means of
increasing public comment and participation. Because of the
Prologue publication schedule, however, this would have to
be done far in advance of the beginning of the year.It would
address the concerns of some that NARS is insufficiently
attuned to the interests of researchers-and would do so in a
manner that was inexpensive in terms of distribution of
information and collection of responses. NARS could also
submit declassification priorities to the NARS Advisory
Council for consideration and comment. The Council
represents a broad spectrum of archival interest and is a
resource which could be helpful in determining priorities.
While researcher interest is the primary concern, it is not
the only concern in establishing declassification priori-
ties. Other factors include anticipated project work and
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
preservation. Either of these elements can influence
declassification project choices or delay them. Project
work is a substantial investment and a questionable one if
declassification prospects are dim. Similarly, records may
have to be reviewed for declassification before proper
preservation treatment is practical. While not major
concerns, these are element, which should be evaluated
during the process of setting declassification priorities.
Recommendation 3
NN should use readily available means to obtain constituent
consideration and comment on NARS established priorities.
NARS should not place itself in the position of establishing
its priorities in a vacuum. Other factors such as scheduled
project work and preservation should also be considered.
4. Personnel Turnover and Staffing Alternatives
One of the most significant problems that has plagued the
records declassification program since its inception has
been the inability to recruit, train, and hold employees.
The turnover rate has been very high. No sooner have
employees been hired, cleared for Top Secret access, trained
and gained the necessary experience then they are gone,
either to other jobs in NARS or to other agencies. Some
have found other jobs while waiting for their clearance.
The problem is both a matter of grade and career advancement
opportunity, and one of tedium and boredom of the review
work itself. NND was never successful in maintaining its
staffing close to the authorized level due to the lead time
required to obtain security clearances and the high turn-
over. Any attempt to increase the overall declassification
effort is not only a matter of additional funds and FTE
authorization. Staffing problems and clearance procedures
must also be addressed to find viable alternatives to the
traditional employment efforts of the past decade.
In its review of the issue, the task force concluded at the
outset that staffing the declassification program with
borrowed staff from the NN custodial units was not the
answer. No increase in staff or funding can or should come
at the expense of the other NN units. NND should hire and
train its own staff. Traditionally the staff has been made
up of full-time permanent employees. Other sources such as
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
reemployed annuitants, or part-time or intermittent
appointments have not normally been used. Reemployed
annuitants are one personnel source that has the potential
for being of particular value to NND. If retired from
agencies whose records are under review by NND, these
employees could also provide expertise gained from their
years of experience. This arrangement has-already worked
well at State, CIA, and NSA. There are problems with the
annuitant approach, however. The first problem is that
there is little or no financial incentive. The second
problem is attracting the right people. Unless these people
have a great deal of leisure time and interest in the files
on which they would be working, there is little likelihood
that they would be interested in being reemployed. Also,
annuitants who spent their careers in the excepted service
are ineligible for competitive positions unless they are on
the OPM registers.
Therefore, annuitants may not be interested in working many
hours and may be difficult to recruit. Their potential
value, however, is sufficiently great that their employment
should be pursued to fulfill at least a small portion of the
NND staffing needs.
In addition, intermittents and part-time employees have been
used with success in other part of NARS, particularly in the
records center program. The difference in the records
declassification program is that they would often be used on
tasks requiring a higher degree of skill and training than
is required in other parts of NARS. NARS would need to
recruit persons who are interested in a less than full-time
job over a period of years. One such group might be
students. Another might be parents seeking to reenter the
job market while children are in school. Another might be
people retired from the private sector who would like to
supplement their income or who would enjoy working with
historical documents. Another group might be selected
ex-NARS employees.
Annuitants, part-timers, and intermittents all might work
out well as NND employees. While no one type will
solve all NND needs, NARS should explore alternate staffing
arrangements since we will most certainly continue to face
the staffing problems that we have had in the past, namely
high turnover and high attendant costs. Because we do not
know how well the suggested staffing arrangements would
work, NARS could experiment with them for a year. At the
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
end of that time NN could evaluate the results and determine
what employment method worked best, and similarly what
targeted groups of potential employees worked best. NND
could then further refine its staffing practices to achieve
the best mix.
By experimenting for a year, limited temporary appointments
could be used which would facilitate initial recruitment.
This would allow NND to try alternate staffing with a mini-
mum of time lost both to heavy paperwork requirements and
to waiting for Office of Personnel Management (OPM) action.
Another impediment in the hiring process is the clearance
requirement. At present Top Secret clearances cost $1,450
and take the Office of Personnel Management from three to
nine months to process. An expedited clearance costs $1,900
and should (but rarely does) take one to two months. Secret
clearances have no charge and take about one to two months.
The time lag from when a vancancy occurs to when it is
filled with a cleared person under current procedures ranges
from five to eleven months. There is little that we can do
about the OPM clearance lag. A possible alternate method of
bringing people on board would be to obtain only a Secret
clearance initially, eventually to be followed by a Top
Secret clearance. Lessening the time that vacancies remain
unfilled would allow NND to increase its output at least to
a small degree.
There are problems with this approach, however. Most files
are not neatly broken into Top Secret, Secret, and
Confidential sections. They are usually intermixed.
Therefore, the files on which Secret-cleared employees could
work is limited. Second, there may need to be some
segration in work areas. Finally, researchers are often
most interested in the highly classified files which
therefore must be given priority declassification
consideration. As with the other staffing alternatives,
however, an experiment with initial Secret level clearances
would be worth the effort.
Recommendation 4
A. The NND staff should be a mix of permanent FTE and other
types of appointments, with permanent FTE constituting the
single largest group. A majority of full time employees is
needed to ensure consistency and expertise in the program.
In many instances the best qualified people would be willing
to work full time only.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
B. NARS and GSA should contact OPM to revise the policies
regarding the few-of-a-kind register used to recruit
archives technicians. The present OPM policy is to keep
that register closed. The result has been OPM developed
lists that are hopelessly out of date. Persons are no
longer available even though their names appear on the list.
And still others whom NND would like to hire
permanently,such as term employees presently on the State
Department review project who have proven themselves to be
good workers, cannot be reached for permanent positions
because the list is closed. Any full-time permanent
staffing increase in NND must be preceded by an opening of
the few-of-a-kind register and by conversion of the best
qualified State Department Project people to permanent FTE.
Unless NND could use these State Department project staffers
as team leaders and as trainers, they could not manage a
greatly increased staff.
C. Finally, NARS should experiment with bringing NND
personnel on board with a Secret clearance, structuring the
NND work and work areas to accomodate such an arrangement,
and filing for Top Secret clearances when the employees
finish their first year in NND or at some other appropriate
time.
5. Procedures/organization/location
The task force reviewed the basic NND operating procedures,
the organizational arrangement, and the location of
the program in Central Office and Presidential Libraries.
A. Procedures
Aside from continuing to emphasize the use of meaningful
critical elements and performance standards, there is
little that can be done to impact productivity. Improved
declassification productivity is generally a factor
of experience and training. Addressing the turnover
question will do more for productivity than any procedural
change. Basically the material now under review requires a
page-by-page review involving the application of complex
guidelines. It is very labor-intensive and will remain so.
Bulk procedures are used where possible but the opportuni-
ties to use this technique are diminishing. The emphasis
should be placed on keeping staff, thereby taking advantage
of experience and training.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Recommendation 5A
Continue to emphasize employee performance but do not
institute any major work process changes.
B. Organization
The GAO report recommended that the bulk of declassification
responsibility be delegated to the custodial units.
Arguments offered in support of this proposal included the
assertions that this would solve the high turnover problem
and that the custodial units, being most familiar with the
files, are most qualified to review them.
Although both of these arguments have merit, the arguments
for a separate status are stronger. Declassification, like
preservation, finance or personnel, is a function with its
own set of unique policies and practices. Although others
may learn these rules, efficient and effective application
of them is best achieved by persons who are well schooled
and practiced in them.
Further, the declassification guidelines and their interpre-
tations are constantly changing. The only way to ensure
that all staff members doing declassification work apply the
rules uniformly, and that they make the necessary changes
and corrections that are mandated over time, is to have a
single authority directing this activity. Split up among
the custodial units, this uniformity could not be achieved
without a substantial increased investment of resources and
the danger of inconsistent or erroneous declassification
review determinations.
More important, however, is the nature of the declassifi-
cation task. NND constantly determines whether national
security classified material may be opened to the public.
Even allowing for considerable over-classification and for a
large percentage of it having been made innocuous by the
passage of time, there remains a body of information with
continuing sensitivity. The National Archives, if it is to
serve national security and the public interest and if it is
to retain the confidence of other agencies as a custodian of
sensitive information, must ensure that mistakes are
minimal. Again, a single unit is the best way to ensure
that this goal is achieved.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Relations with other agencies are also important. If we are
to receive meaningful guidelines from them and if they are
to provide us with required liaison support, we must
demonstrate that we are protecting their interests. The
best way to do this is to present these agencies with a
single, central, strong, informed unit enforcing careful
and thoughtful implementation of the guidelines within NARS.
Finally, since resources are already minimal, we do not
want to further dilute them. If the NND staff were broken
up among the various custodial units, the chances of those
resources being diverted to other tasks would increase
dramatically. Also, having the function distributed among
the custodial units would lessen the visibility of the
program.
Recommendation 5B
NND's substructure is currently being realigned to reflect
the current level of effort. This substructure may need to
change if additional resources are put into the program but
NND sould remain a separate unit.
C. Location
The declassification effort is currently located in the
Archives Building, the Washington National Records Center
in Suitland, the regional arechives branches, and the
Presidential Libraries. We carefully reviewed suggestions
that a major portion of the effort be relocated out of
Washington to a more favorable employment area in order to
facilitate the staffing alternatives discussed earlier.
We concluded, however, that there were too many problems
associated with this concept.
Shipment of records to the regions for the purpose of
declassification would be ill advised. First, the costs of
preparing classified documents for shipping back and forth
would be very high. Second, only if declassification
was a static, easily defined process would there be
some merit in this suggestion. However, as was noted
earlier, guidelines and interpretations keep changing.
Training archives branch chiefs and their staffs in the
process and application of declassification guidelines,
(which is itself a classified activity) and keeping them up
to date (which also is a classified activity) would
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
be cumbersome and costly. It would hamper productivity as
well as the accuracy and consistency of the product. The
archivists in the regions are doing some declassification,
but only in small amounts of carefully selected materials.
Third, questions requiring input from originating agencies
arise almost daily. Many can be handled only in person.
Therefore records would have to be reshipped to NND,
coordinated with the agency in question, a reply drafted,
and the package reshipped to the region.
Finally, by coordinating the review of potentially sensitive
records with agency representatives, NND can declassify many
documents that otherwise would have to be laborioulsy listed
and withdrawn. This capability would be diminished if
records were to be shipped to the regions. Documents would
have to be withdrawn and returned to Washington for agency
coordination by NND. Withdrawn documents subsequently
declassified would then have to be refiled. This process
would increase the cost of declassification per page more
than ten-fold. The added handling would also tend to
increase the chances of damage to the documents.
The task force felt that these disadvantages far
outweighed the possible advantage of a more favorable
employment area.
Recommendation 5C
NARS should continue to conduct all declassification review
on records scheduled for permanent retention in the
Washington, D.C. area or wherever those records are
presently housed.
D. Presidential Libraries
The task force also reviewed the records declassification
program in the Presidential Libraries. NARS staff for
handling declassification review in the Presidential
Libraries is sufficient and should be maintained at present
levels.
Neither the Hoover nor Roosevelt Library presents a
problem. One staff member assigned to the Truman Library is
able to handle the systematic review workload. Four staff
members assigned to the Eisenhower Library are able to
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
handle both the systematic and the mandatory review
workloads. At the Kennedy and Johnson Libraries between two
and three staff members are assigned to handle the mandatory
review workload. This staffing level is sufficient to keep
pace with the volume of records being processed. There are
significant backlogs of records requiring preliminary
review, however, in both of these libraries and also in the
Nixon, Ford, and Carter organizations. These backlogs will
be addressed systematically as the classified information
becomes thirty years old and resources in older libraries
are shifted.
It should be noted that the Presidential Libraries often
have to send records undergoing systematic review to
Washington to NND to coordinate final agency review. It is
manageable because of the low volume thus far involved. No
one involved in this process, however, would like to attempt
such coordination on the large scale which relocation of
major declassification projects would entail.
Recommendation 5D
As long as the size of the processing staffs in the
Presidential Libraries are not increased the
declassification program in Presidential Libraries should
remain unchanged.
6. Resource levels and funding
Given the backlog of classified materials, the present level
of effort, and the declassification process itself, the task
force concluded that there was no simple solution to
increasing declassification output. More resources would
have to be put into the program either-by direct or
reimbursable funding. Any increase in funding, as mentioned
earlier, should not come at the expense of other NARS
programs. The two outstanding questions concern an
appropriate mix of reimbursable and direct funding and the
level of declassification effort in NARS.
Reimbursable funding is entirely dependent on the desire for
such reviews by outside agencies. NARS should continue to
seek reimbursable agreements for its declassification
program but must recognize that the likelihood of success is
small.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
NND, of course, has experience with reimbursale funding.
The State Department agreement of 1982 provided funding but
also required NARS to commit FTE to the project. NND has
pursued similar funding arrangements with other agencies.
At present, only the Agency for International Development
(AID) is following State's lead and is likely to conclude an
agreement. Although many other agencies have been
contacted, no others have shown an interest in a
reimbursable agreement. If the records are already
accessioned, NARS is unlikely to obtain reimbursable funding
for their declassification review. The only leverage we
have is to defer accessioning pending completion of
declassification. Agencies could rightly say "it's your job
NARS, you do it" and we have already discussed and
recommended a consistent accessioning policy which would
disregard declassification requirements as a consideration
in acceptance of permanently valuable records.
Although reimbursable agreements would have distinct
benefits for NARS, NARS most likely will have to commit
some FTE to the projects as with the State Department
declassification review project, where one third of the
effort is funded by NARS. So the issue returns to the
question of increased direct funds even when opportunities
for reimbursable projects do arise.
There are many problems associated with an increase in
direct funding for the declassification program. The first
is determining the appropriate level. The task force had a
difficult time trying to get a good estimate of the
workload. Once obtained, it was obvious that a level of
resources capable of handling all of the backlog and keeping
current with new accessions was simply not feasible nor
desirable in light of past criticisms of that approach. The
level should be based on anticipated researcher demand
while continuing the present level of effort to respond to
FOIAs, mandatory reviews and "special"-reviews for a limited
number of records immediately helpful to researchers in
contact with custodial units.
The task force was not able to decide on a long-term
resource level and instead decided to recommend a resource
level that would enable NARS to meet a declassification
target that would most likely meet known researcher demand.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
That target is believed to be about 5 million pages
declassified a year. The resource level required to meet it
would approximate the FY 1981 program level of $2.4 million
in 1981 dollars and 102 FTE, or more than twice the current
level.
The second problem relates to the method for obtaining an
increase in resources. The first opportunity to formally
request a funding increase in the regular budget cycle is
the FY 1986 budget which will be formulated beginning in
April of this year. The more immediate concern, however, is
what to do in the remainder of FY 1984 and 1985. Any
increase in staffing will take time to accomplish so the
funding increase in FY 1984 would be minimal. Also from a
practical standpoint the staff cannot be more than doubled
all at once. Adding additional resources to.NND should be
done gradually. NND is not staffed to train many new people
without adverse impact on the present level of effort.
Declassification priorities need to be established as well.
Therefore the balance of 1984 should be used to put new
employment and staffing procedures in place, to recruit for
approximately 10 new staff members, and to establish a
declassification work plan reflecting the anticipated
increased level of effort. If additional personnel
limitation or resourcers are needed in FY 1984, they could
be made available from the NARS reserve held by GSA.
The recruiting effort would continue in FY 1985 with the
objective of reaching the new staffing level by the
beginning of FY 1986. FY 1985 funds for the program could
be requested in a FY 1985 supplemental or failing that
reprogrammed from the FY 1985 funds earmarked for the
same purpose as the FY 1984 funds now held in reserve. If a
personnel funding limitation is imposed in FY 1985, an
increase would also be requested to cover additional
declassification positions. Projects planned with reserve
funds could be deferred until FY 1986 and repaid when full
1981 level declassification funds are available.
Recommendation 6
A. NN should begin developing specific FY 1985
(supplemental) and FY 1986 Records Declassification budget
proposals to restore the program to its FY 1981 level. The
specific FTE and fund request should be developed by NND in
conjunction with NAB.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
B. NN should also establish a yearly records declassifi-
cation target beginning in FY 985 that will meet reseracher
demand and identify in the annual work plan the projects to
be accomplished.
C. NN should work with EPSN to develop recruiting
strategies using a mix of appointments and sources of
employees with a goal of 10 new hires by year end.
Additional personnel limitation and funds will be arranged
if needed by NA.
After 2 years, in FY 1988, the program should be reevaluated
to determine if other changes need to be made.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
NARS HOLDINGS REQUIRING
DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW
Listed are the record groups that the custodial units and
NND identified as containing classified information.
Following the record group is the estimated footage
requiring attention by NND. For all record groups with 500
cubic feet or more we have indicated whether the records can
be bulk reviewed, require page-by-page review, or require a
combination of the two.
Record Groups
Cubic Feet
Over 500 Feet
Bulk Page-hX-Pa e
RG 16
577
100%
RG 18
3
RG 24
125
RG 26
2
RG 27
6
RG 38
808
25%
75%
RG 43
30
RG 46
250
RG 48
30
RG 49
3
RG 51
940
95%
5%
RG 56
7
RG 57
15
RG 59
900
100%
RG 60
3032
100%
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 . Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Records Groups
Cubic Feet
Over 500 Feet
Bulk Page-byPage
RG 65
3
RG 71
160
RG 72
600
RG 76
1
RG 77
290
RG 80
154
RG 84
149
RG 92
100
RG 128
3
RG 129
580
100%
RG 153
100
RG 156
1300
75%
25%
RG 159
36
RG 166
24
RG 169
20
RG 174
121
RG 175
190
RG 178
20
RG 181
100
RG 188
100
RG 200
1
RG 202
62
RG 211
538
100%
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Records Groups
Cubic Feet
Over 500 Feet
Bulk Page-byPage
RG 216
37
RG 218
9
RG 219
2
RG 220
342
RG 226
500
RG 250
120
RG 269
20
RG 273
75
RG 278
43
RG 313
11300
75%
25%
RG 319
6000
100%
RG 326
4
RG 330
1000
75%
25%
RG 3h
1250
75%
25%
RG 333
26
RG 334
91
RG 335
1515
50%
50%
RG 337
500
100%
RG 338
13700
75%
25%
RG 340
1400
75%
25%
RG 341
3026
75%
25%
RG 349
68
RG 351
1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
Over 500 Feet
Records Groups Cubic Feet Bulk Pa e-byPage
RG 359 580
RG 374 24
RG 389 95
RG 407 170
RG 429 281
Total cubic feet 53,559
Total pages 133,897,500
Not included in the above list are intelligence files from
Record Group 319, Records of the Army Staff files (7680
cubic feet) and from Record Group 341, Records of
Headquarters U.S. Air Force (600 cubic feet), which are not
liable for declassification action until they are 50 years
old. Similarly, Record Group 260, Records of the U.S. Civil
Administration, Ryukyu Islands is not listed because it
cannot be considered for declassification until the files
are 30 years old (that is, after 2002) because of
difficulties in a filing system that freely intermixed
records created between 1945 and 1972.
Also,not included in the record group totals is microfilm
which likewise should not be considered part of the
declassification backlog. Because of the amount of time
required to review each reel (over 30 hours) microfilm
should be reviewed for declassification only in response to
researcher requests. The major blocks of reels are in the
following record groups:
RG 18
- 630 reels
RG 319
- 1340 reels
RG 331
- 3,000 reels
RG 338
- 12,555 reels
The custodial units and NND will probably identify
additional large blocks of records that should not be
considered for declassification when they examine the
classified holdings in greater detail.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
P 1. 6. Type of Materials
I. Records created before December 7, 19411
A. Most have been declassified= any that remain probably could be bulk
declassi fi ed.
B. Have a few problems with FBI and intelligence
II. Records created between December 7, 1941 and December 31, 19451
A. Majority have been declassified; majority of remainder could be
bulk declassified
B. Incidence of security-classs f ed for World ear and d found in most
record groups containing r=od (Justice,
C. Have not yet accessioned some major files for this period
Army Air Forces, some major Navy files, early DOE labs, etc.)
D. Have a few categories requiring page-by-page reviews
1. intelligence and cryptology
2. Allied information (British)
3. special weapons
4. chemical and biological warfare
5. escape and evasion
6. cover and deception
III. Records created after Decembdeclassification ISOO directive No. 1 prohibits of intelligence and cryptological files until they are at least 50 years old
B. Contain many documents from international organizations (UN,NATO,
SEATO,CENTO, etc.) for which we have no declassification authority.
C. Contain documents with foreign government information and are not
yet 30 years old.
D. Documents contain higher incidence of RD and thus cannot be declassified
by NABS. line.
E. Major guidelines (State, DOD, and CIA) are at a 30-year ear and difficult
F. Guidelines have become much more precise, voluminous, exemption.
to apply. Contain a number of new categories requiring ernment
G. Documents contain a variety of information from a variety of
common is
agencies, thus causing the use of several guidelines
State-DOD-CIA) to declassify onedocument document.
been accessioned and
H. Some records of the 1945-1950 period
declassified; but the majority of records for the 1950s have yet to
be accessioned.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
THE WHITE HOUSE
March 23, 1984
Dear Mr. Garfinkel:
I was very pleased to review your FY 1983 Annual
Report and to learn that the system we have
established under Executive Order 12356 to provide
better protection for national security informa-
tion without excessive classification is working.
While we anticipated that the revised information
security system would improve credibility and
efficiency of the program, its success is also
dependent upon the outstanding oversight efforts
of you and your staff and the thousands of other
persons throughout the executive branch who are
dedicated to making it work. Please convey my
appreciation to all those whose efforts made these
achievements possible.
I ask for the same commitment in the future to
improving our performance even more. we must
continue to insure that information is being
classified only when this extraordinary protection
is necessary; that those entrusted with access to
national security information appreciate the
seriousness of their responsibility to safeguard
it; and that systematic review and other declas-
fication efforts are made in accordance with the
order's goal of making information no longer
requiring security protection available to the
public.
I trust that you and your staff will continue to
work with responsible officials throughout the
Government to address these and other issues that
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R0001 00080002-8
relate to the administration of the information
security program. I look forward to future reports
on the progress that has been made as a result of
these efforts.
Sincerely,
2dr. Steven Garfinkel
Director
Information Security Oversight
Office
18th and F Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20405
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/02/01: CIA-RDP87-00181 R000100080002-8