Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4 — Data Quality Requirements <br />4.1 What is the scope of required data quality reviews? <br />Data quality (i.e., accuracy, completeness and timely reporting of information) reviews <br />required by this Guidance are intended to emphasize the avoidance of two key data <br />problems -- material omissions and significant reporting errors. Material omissions are <br />defined as instances where required data is not reported or reported information is not <br />otherwise responsive to the data requests resulting in significant risk that the public is not <br />fully informed as to the status of a Recovery Act project or activity. An example of a <br />material omission would be a recipient, or delegated sub - recipient, who fails to report the <br />current percentage of completion for a project and/or an activity that has been funded by <br />the Recovery Act. Instances in which a prime recipient or sub- recipient fails to report <br />entirely would be considered a material omission for the purposes of this Guidance. <br />In general, material omissions should be minimized by the www.FederalReporting.gov <br />solution, which will require fields to be completed for successful transmission. However, <br />a material omission may still occur to the extent submitted data is not responsive to a <br />specific data request. For example, a recipient required to report a description of a <br />purchase made from a vendor may not provide sufficient detail in the description for the <br />reader to derive the nature of the purchase. <br />Significant reporting errors are defined as those instances where required data is not <br />reported accurately and such erroneous reporting results in significant risk that the public <br />will be misled or confused by the recipient report in question. An example of this would <br />be a recipient, or sub - recipient, who reports expenditures in excess of the amount <br />awarded by the Federal funding agency, excluding funding resulting from match <br />requirements. Significant reporting errors may be intentional or accidental. Actions <br />should be taken to reduce either cause. <br />Federal agencies should coordinate how to apply the definitions of material omission and <br />significant reporting error in given program areas or across programs in a given agency. <br />This will ensure consistency in the manner in which data quality reviews are carried out. <br />4.2 Who is responsible for the quality of data submitted under Section 1512 of the <br />Recovery Act? <br />Data quality is an important responsibility of key stakeholders identified in the Recovery <br />Act. Prime recipients, as owners of the data submitted, have the principal responsibility <br />for the quality of the information submitted. Sub - recipients delegated to report on behalf <br />of prime recipients share in this responsibility. Agencies funding Recovery Act projects <br />and activities provide a layer of oversight that augments recipient data quality. Oversight <br />authorities including the OMB, the Recovery Board, and Federal agency Inspectors <br />General also have roles to play in data quality. The general public and non - governmental <br />27 <br />