Law & Principles

Oklahoma agency reports provide limited transparency

July 10, 2025

Ray Carter

Oklahoma law requires state agencies to issue hundreds of reports documenting various programs’ effectiveness—more than 500 on a regular basis.

But that doesn’t mean the public can easily access most of that information.

A new review conducted by the state Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT) found that mandatory state reports are not typically made easily accessible to the public, meaning the information the reports contain is practically hidden from the average citizen.

“Reports may be the only place the requested information is available: LOFT’s research revealed that 84.5 percent of all report topics were not able to be found online,” the report stated. “Reports are frequently related to either incoming revenue or the expenditure of State funds. Additionally, 47.2 percent of all agency reports centered around a specific agency program or division.”

In many instances, LOFT found that “agencies are submitting their reports to the individual office holders or to a legislative staff member, most commonly by email.”

LOFT found most of the required reports “contain information that, if not for the report, would not otherwise be disclosed.”

While mandatory reporting is supposed to provide greater government transparency, the way Oklahoma agencies are required by state law to report that information undercuts that goal. If a citizen is interested in finding a report, LOFT found that “the most direct way to locate a particular report is to make a request of the agency responsible for submitting the report.”

That means a citizen must know a specific report has been mandated and the timing of its release.

The LOFT report noted dryly, “The way Oklahoma manages statutory reports may be limiting their usefulness.”

Other states make similar reports readily available not only to all lawmakers but also to all citizens.

“In examining other states’ practices, LOFT identified opportunities to improve the accessibility and usability of the information provided by State agencies,” the report stated. “LOFT’s review found 23 states have an official webpage dedicated to tracking and archiving the reports required to be submitted to the state’s Legislature.”

There was a stark difference between access to information in Oklahoma and access to mandatory reports in those other states.

“LOFT was able to easily review other states’ inventory of reports online, while compiling the list of Oklahoma’s reports required manual statutory reviews and contacting agencies directly,” the LOFT report stated.

One apparent byproduct of the state’s less-than-transparent process for agency reports is that many agencies may not be complying with state law. LOFT staff concluded that the lack of a centralized reporting system limited their ability to determine agency compliance.

“As LOFT sought to determine the level of compliance by agencies in submitting statutorily required reports to the Legislature, LOFT found examples where agencies failed to submit the report or independently decided the report requirement was not applicable,” the report stated. “LOFT also found agencies that were unaware of reporting requirements. While enough information was obtained to determine inconsistent compliance, LOFT was unable to quantify the degree of compliance or non-compliance across State agencies. The greatest factor limiting assessment is the lack of an effective centralized filing system for reports submitted to the Legislature.”