The Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality Act, was enacted in December 2000 as Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554). The act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to federal agencies designed to ensure the "quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information disseminated to the public. It also required agencies to issue their own information quality guidelines, and to establish administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agencies that does not comply with the OMB guidance. Although some observers said the IQA would improve the quality of agency science and regulation, others viewed the act as a tool by which regulated parties could slow or even stop new health, safety, and environmental standards. Because of the scant legislative history of the IQA and its lack of detail, OMB's guidance interpreting key provisions in the act has a major effect on its implementation. In those guidelines, OMB noted that the act applies to virtually all federal agencies and established the broad scope of the guidelines by defining "information" as "any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form." Similarly, the guidelines define "dissemination" as any "agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public." OMB indicated that "quality" encompasses elements of utility, objectivity, and integrity, and said agencies can generally presume that data are "objective" if they have been subject to an independent peer review process. In April 2004, OMB provided Congress with a report on the implementation of the IQA during FY2003. The report said the agencies received only about 35 substantive correction requests during the year, and said it was "premature to make broad statements about both the impact of the correction request process and the overall responsiveness of the agencies." Many other correction requests listed in the report were on minor issues or involved matters that had been dealt with before the IQA was enacted. OMB indicated that the correction requests came from all segments of society, and said there was no evidence that the IQA had affected the pace of rulemaking. However, OMB Watch (a public interest group) said OMB's report was "seriously flawed" in that it understated the number of correction requests and did not disclose that nearly three-quarters of the requests were from industry. A major test of the IQA's effectiveness is whether agencies' denials of correction requests are subject to judicial review. In June 2004, a U.S. District Court ruled that the act does not permit judicial review regarding agencies' compliance with its provisions, and the Department of Justice issued a brief stating that the IQA does not permit judicial review. Comments from OMB, OMB Watch, and others suggest several possible areas for improvement of the IQA's implementation. This report will be updated in the event of significant developments in the administration, judicial interpretation, or legislative oversight of the IQA.

The importance and widespread use of federal information makes its accuracy imperative. The Information Quality Act (IQA) required that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issue guidelines to ensure the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies by fiscal year 2003. GAO was asked to (1) assess OMB's role in helping agencies implement IQA; (2) identify the number, type, and source of IQA correction requests agencies received; and (3) examine if IQA has adversely affected agencies' overall operations and, in particular, rulemaking processes. In response, GAO interviewed OMB and agency officials and reviewed agency IQA guidelines, related documents, and Web sites.

Policymakers and program managers are continually seeking ways to improve accountability in achieving an entity's mission. A key factor in improving accountability in achieving an entity's mission is to implement an effective internal control system. An effective internal control system helps an entity adapt to shifting environments, evolving demands, changing risks, and new priorities. As programs change and entities strive to improve operational processes and implement new technology, management continually evaluates its internal control system so that it is effective and updated when necessary. Section 3512 (c) and (d) of Title 31 of the United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)) requires the Comptroller General to issue standards for internal control in the federal government.

Audits provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. Given the current challenges facing governments and their programs, the oversight provided through auditing is more critical than ever. Government auditing provides the objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future. The professional standards presented in this 2018 revision of Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book) provide a framework for performing high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services. These standards, commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide the foundation for government auditors to lead by example in the areas of independence, transparency, accountability, and quality through the audit process. This revision contains major changes from, and supersedes, the 2011 revision.

The Information Quality Act (IQA), passed in FY 2001, required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines by the end of that fiscal year to ensure the quality of information disseminated by federal agencies. OMB issued guidance to agencies to clarify how they were to satisfy the law and implement IQA, and to develop and post IQA guidelines and related information on their websites. This report (1) identifies the number, source, and final disposition of IQA correction requests received by the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and other agencies for fiscal years 2010 through 2014; and (2) assesses the extent to which the 24 CFO Act and other agencies that received correction requests made IQA information publicly available. Tables and figures. This is a print on demand report.