For example, Statistical Policy Directive No. They  required agencies subject to the IQA to take such steps as  issue information quality guidelines designed to ensure the quality,  objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated to the  public;   establish administrative mechanisms for affected persons to seek  correction of information they believe is not in compliance with the  guidelines;   report annually to the Director of OMB on the number and nature of  complaints received regarding compliance with the guidelines and how  the agencies handled those complaints; and   designate an official responsible for ensuring compliance with OMB’s  guidelines. NASS Met the Procedural and Reporting Requirements of OMB’s IQA Guidelines

NASS fulfilled the various procedural responsibilities and reporting  requirements under OMB’s guidelines. Better Documentation Could Improve the Transparency of Data Products and Correction Procedures

NASS’s IQA guidelines define transparency as, “a clear description of the  methods, data sources, assumptions, outcomes, and related information  that allows a data user to understand how an information product was  designed and produced.” NASS’s guidelines also note that “NASS will make  the methods used to produce information as transparent as possible” and  that its “internal guidelines call for clear documentation of data and  methods used in producing estimates and forecasts. . . .”
To assess the extent to which NASS processes help ensure the  transparency of the information it publishes, we examined key publications  from the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Limitations of the data. Impact of imputations, by item. However,  because NASS does not document its informal procedures for handling  inquiries and data correction requests, and lacks a recordkeeping system to  log and track them, NASS could not provide us with firm information on  the number of inquiries it has handled, the nature of those inquiries, and  whether and how they were addressed. NASS Has Taken Steps to Better Document Its Criteria for Assessing Input on Census Content

The 2002 Census of Agriculture was the first in which NASS developed the  questionnaire (the 1997 Census of Agriculture was moved from the Census  Bureau to NASS after the content had been determined). However, as a result of our  review, NASS has developed documented criteria similar to that used  during the previous census. Document and post on NASS’s Web site its procedures for handling  data correction requests not filed under IQA, and track the disposition  of those requests.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Information Quality Act (IQA) required the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidelines for ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. As part of our long-term examination of the quality of federal information, under the Comptroller General's authority, we reviewed how the act was implemented by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and assessed the transparency of the documentation supporting its Census of Agriculture. NASS is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

What GAO Found

NASS fulfilled its various procedural responsibilities and reporting requirements under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidelines for implementing the act. For example, NASS drafted its own implementation guidance, and developed a mechanism allowing affected parties to request the correction of information they believe is of poor quality. As a result of our review, NASS has also taken steps to better document the criteria it uses to evaluate data users' input on the content of the Census of Agriculture. Building on these efforts, better documentation could improve the transparency of census data products. For example, the nine key products from the 2002 Census we examined lacked, among other things, discussions of any data limitations. This is contrary to NASS's own guidelines for ensuring transparency, which stress the importance of describing the methods, data sources, and other items to help users understand how the information was designed and produced. Although NASS complied with OMB's requirement to establish a mechanism under IQA to address requests to correct information, NASS has not documented its approach for handling correction requests not filed under IQA (NASS handles these correction requests using an existing, informal method). Agency officials told us that data users have been satisfied with the way NASS had responded to these requests. However, because NASS does not document its informal procedures for handling correction requests and lacks a recordkeeping system to log and track them, NASS could not provide us with specific data on the number of such requests it has handled, the nature of those requests, and whether and how they were addressed.