Current Issues Affecting Public Records Request Management

Open records laws apply to government agencies in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and they remain foundational to transparency and accountability in the public sector. At the same time, resident expectations for speed, accessibility, and transparency have put new pressure on public servants. Records request management now sits at the intersection of legal compliance, operational capacity, technology, and public trust.

In this blog, we examine eight trends reshaping how governments manage public records requests and meet resident needs.

1. Record Volume and Complexity Are Climbing

Agencies are facing increases in request volume, while some requests are growing harder to scope and comply with. At the federal level, Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) requests totaled more than 1.5 million in fiscal year 2024, a more than 25% year-over-year increase.

Local agencies around the nation report similar spikes, putting significant strain on staffs and budgets. These examples illustrate the challenges facing public servants and underline the need for a new approach to managing public records and responding to requests:

• West Sacramento, CA, reports that requests under the state’s Public Records Act have “almost tripled” in recent years.
• Over a three-year period, the police department in Minot, ND experienced a 20% to 30% increase in public records requests.
• In Jacksonville, IL, public servants received 40% more requests in 2025 than in 2024. The increasing volume may necessitate the hiring of a new Public Records Clerk.
• The staff in San Antonio, TX, saw more than 86,000 public records requests in 2025. According to the city’s Open Government Manager, only about 4,000 annual requests came through when she entered her role around a decade ago. Her staff has grown from a two-person team to a 12-person department in the last five years alone.

Analysis from the FOIA Advisory Committee’s Volume and Frequency Subcommittee has identified three structural drivers behind rising request volumes, growing backlogs, and slower response times. First, rapid growth in the total number of digital records has created more discoverable and requestable material. Second, increasingly broad and data-heavy requests are more likely to require coordinated searches across departments and systems. And, third, many agencies still rely on manual search, collection, and review processes that cannot scale to meet today’s volumes.

2. New Formats, New Headaches

The types of records being requested are changing. Many agencies are not yet equipped to handle them efficiently.

Video is now central to many requests, especially those that relate to law enforcement. Preparing bodycam footage and recordings from prisons or jails for release requires secure search, redaction, storage, and delivery workflows. These steps can consume significant amounts of time depending on the scope of the request.

Some states are responding to these operational burdens by introducing new fees. In Ohio, for example, agencies are permitted to charge up to $75 per hour, capped at $750 per request, for police bodycam footage and video captured inside correctional facilities. Such rules help offset the cost of review and redaction, but they also raise questions about equitable access.

Social media adds additional complexity. Posts, edits, comments, and even deleted content may be treated as public records if they come from official accounts and deal with official business. Agencies are often responsible for retaining this content, but manual recordkeeping methods like screenshots do not reliably capture all the necessary information and context.

Text messages, instant messages, and messages in collaboration platforms may also be considered public records when they concern public business. These channels are often decentralized, subject to automatic deletion, and excluded from central archiving. In April 2025, one Pennsylvania state senator proposed a pair of bills aimed at strengthening electronic records retention. The second of these bills amends the Keystone State’s Right-to-Know Law to establish a two-year minimum retention period for any electronic agency record.

3. Fragmented Systems and Weak Retention Practices

Although 98% of local governments maintain a web presence, fewer than half offer public records access through their websites. Behind the scenes, many agencies rely on fragmented systems and outdated retention practices that slow response times, contribute to resident frustration, and increase legal risks.

Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records has summarized the challenge bluntly. Agencies often struggle to meet the state’s five-business-day response requirement because “they have boxes and boxes of years-old (or decades-old) records and may not even know what’s in them.” This problem is not unique to Pennsylvania agencies.

Within a single local government, emails, shared drives, records management systems, video platforms, and social media tools may all operate independently. Retention schedules may be outdated, inconsistently applied, or poorly integrated with other systems. As a result, staff spend significant time searching for records, verifying the completeness of responses, and coordinating with peers across departments.

Poor organization and weak retention practices increase the likelihood of missed deadlines, incomplete responses, and inadvertent disclosure of exempt records.

4. Patchwork Laws, Tight Deadlines, and Rising Litigation Risk

Public records laws vary widely by state, creating a complex compliance landscape for local governments. Eleven states have no mandated response time, while the rest require agencies to address requests within as few as three or as many as 20 business days. Under specific conditions, statutes may allow for extensions.

Under Washington’s Public Records Act, for example, agencies must respond to requesters within five business days. Meeting such deadlines becomes increasingly challenging as the number and complexity of records requests grow.

Law enforcement transparency laws continue to evolve. Ohio’s introduction of new fees for specific video footage illustrates how states are reassessing the financial and operational impact of modern records requests. In California, proposed legislation such as Assembly Bill 1178 could limit access to certain police personnel records that were opened by earlier reforms, demonstrating how quickly the law can change.

Accessibility is also now a legal requirement. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its Final Rule on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), establishing new deadlines for local governments to align digital content and records with WCAG 2.1 AA standards. Communities with populations of 50,000 or more must comply by April 24, 2026. Smaller communities and special districts have until April 26, 2027.

Despite these deadlines, CivicPlus^® research shows that only 13% of local government leaders are very familiar with the DOJ’s announcement, and 38% have not heard of it at all.

5. Budget, Staffing, and Expertise Constraints

Capacity constraints remain one of the most persistent challenges in public records request management.

According to CivicPlus research on web accessibility, 42% of local officials cite lack of staff time as a significant barrier to resident needs, 35% cite a lack of financial resources, and 32% cite lack of staff training and awareness. These same constraints often affect records management, redaction, and response workflows.

Many local governments do not have a dedicated public records officer. Instead, responsibility falls to clerks or communications staff who already manage full workloads. These challenges are compounded when communications lack formal policies or training programs related to exemptions, redaction standards, and retention schedules.

Accessibility, Equity, and the Digital Trust Gap

Public records request management plays a central role in promoting accessibility and equity. When request forms, portals, and published records are difficult to find, confusing, or inaccessible, public trust erodes.

Accessible, mobile-friendly, easy-to-use systems for submitting public records requests and accessing published documents are now an essential component of the resident experience. 63% of residents say accessibility features on government websites are highly important, and 84% of local leaders agree that accessibility is important for fostering trust.

Residents who find municipal websites easy to navigate report twice as much trust in local leaders and more than four times as much satisfaction compared to those who find these sites difficult to use. They are also more likely to support future investments in resident-facing technology. Residents with lower trust, however, are more likely to be late adopters of digital services.

Though residents and public servants largely agree on the value of accessible content and services, just 41% of residents currently consider their government’s website very or extremely easy to use.

7. Technology and Automation: Promises and Pitfalls

The FOIA Advisory Committee is actively studying how advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), could help agencies manage high volumes of increasingly complex requests.

CivicPlus research shows that residents are open yet cautious when it comes to AI in government. 42% said they would support their local government exploring AI if they understood how it would be used.

Among residents who are open to AI, the most supported use cases include improving website navigation, data analysis, and operational efficiency. High-risk areas such as healthcare and social services attract significantly less support.

In the context of public records request management, emerging technologies can help agencies centralize intake and tracking, search dynamically across content sources, improve redaction workflows, promote accessibility, and provide analytics on request trends and bottlenecks.

Success will depend on transparent communication about how tools work, strong privacy and security controls, and policies that keep staff accountable for decision-making.

8. Resident Expectations for Transparency and Communication

72% of residents use digital tools to interact with their local government. They increasingly expect interactions with the government to mirror the convenience of online shopping or mobile banking. Thanks to “the Amazon Effect,” many now expect the public sector to offer real-time updates, seamless digital experiences, and responsive services.

These expectations apply directly to public records request management. Residents want to submit requests through simple web portals, receive email or text confirmations and status updates, and easily search through commonly requested documents.

Opaque or inaccessible processes diminish transparency and trustworthiness. Alternatively, when residents can easily find information, submit requests, and track progress, it reinforces the sense that local leadership is organized, responsive, and accountable.

Public records programs should be treated as front-line communication channels, not just legal functions. Websites should include a clear records request portal, a mobile-friendly request form, plain language explanations of timelines, and easy access to commonly requested types of records.

Start with a Self-Assessment

Are you equipped to manage the rising volume and complexity of records requests while meeting resident expectations for transparency and responsiveness? Conduct a records requests efficiency self-assessment to find out.

A focused self-assessment helps clarify where current processes are effective, where capacity and compliance risks are emerging, and where targeted improvements can deliver the greatest results. Download our self-assessment checklist today to start building a practical foundation for prioritizing next steps and making more informed decisions about staffing, workflows, and technology.