In September 2003, the Bureau broke from its tradition of releasing its Income and Poverty Estimates on a Tuesday or Thursday at a news conference at the National Press Club (see table 1). The data were instead released at a news conference on a Friday at Bureau Headquarters in Suitland, Maryland. Although the Bureau provided the media and other attendees with bus service from the National Press Club to Suitland, because the data showed that poverty levels had risen, some data users expressed concern that the change in day and location was an attempt to suppress unfavorable information by releasing it at a more remote location and before a weekend, when the public tends to pay less attention to the news. The Income and Poverty Estimates, like other kinds of federal statistical information, provide key measures of the health and well-being of our society. As a result, the data need to be accurate, timely, accessible, relevant, and objective. At the same time, according to NRC, the manner in which agencies release the data is also important, and needs to be free from even an appearance of bias and political manipulation. Failure to meet this goal could undermine public confidence in the information and erode an agency’s credibility. That said, although various guidance and laws have been developed to safeguard the overall quality of federal data, few governmentwide provisions directly address the data dissemination process itself, and agencies have largely been left to develop their own practices. For example, while OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive Number 3, “Compilation, Release, and Evaluation of Principal Federal Economic Indicators” provides detailed guidance on the dissemination of data, it only applies to 38 market sensitive principal economic indicators. Statistical Policy Directive Number 3 is highly regarded in the statistical community because it provides statistical agencies with comprehensive data dissemination guidance, requiring agencies to, among other actions, promptly release data according to an established schedule, and announce and fully explain any schedule changes in advance. Under the Information Quality Act, OMB was required to issue governmentwide guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. OMB’s guidelines, issued in final form in February 2002, directed agencies covered by the act (statistical agencies and most others) to issue their own quality guidelines. OMB’s guidelines imposed certain core responsibilities on agencies, including incorporating quality into their information dissemination practices. OMB noted that quality consists of several dimensions, including objectivity (which focuses on whether the disseminated information is accurate, reliable, and unbiased in presentation and substance). More generally, OMB helps ensure that the activities of the statistical agencies are in line with federal statistical policy by coordinating agency budget requests and interagency groups working on statistical issues, issuing statistical standards, and reviewing agency requests to collect information. This report is the latest of several studies we have issued on the quality of federal data. See Related GAO Reports at the end of this report for a list of selected products we have issued to date. While not all of the Bureau’s data dissemination practices are documented, we were able to determine through discussions with Bureau officials and review of available documentation, that the Bureau adhered to most of its long-standing data release practices. In changing the date and location of the 2003 and subsequent releases of the Income and Poverty Estimates, the Bureau did depart from its tradition of releasing this information on a Tuesday or Thursday at a news conference at the National Press Club. That said, under the Bureau’s documented data dissemination practices (1) there is no requirement for the Bureau to release this information at a particular location on a given day and, (2) no particular official is designated authority to choose the release date and location. Bureau officials stated that the date of the 2003 release was changed from September 23rd to September 26th for several reasons, including delays in producing a companion report on supplemental measures of expenditures, consumption, and poverty that was to be released at the same time. Also, the 2004 and 2005 estimates were released a month earlier than in prior years to coincide with the release of data from the American Community Survey. The documented practices for disseminating the Income and Poverty Estimates are contained in a memo that is 21 years old so the Bureau is updating them, to among other things, reflect current technology. The Bureau has several sources of documented, agencywide practices for disseminating data to the public. For example, in accordance with OMB’s guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act, the Bureau developed its own set of quality guidelines that include provisions aimed at ensuring the objectivity and integrity of its data. The Bureau also has a series of data dissemination practices available on its Intranet site and it has issued four standards governing the dissemination of data products, including Dissemination of Census and Survey Data Products. We found that the only documented practices specific to the release of the Income and Poverty Estimates are contained in a 1985 memorandum that was included as one of several appendixes to the Bureau’s Administrative Manual. The manual provides Bureau policy on the release of data and guidance for divisions to follow in responding to requests for such information. The 1985 memorandum, which was signed by the Director of the Census Bureau at the time, includes eight broad steps, covering the process for disseminating the Income and Poverty Estimates. The eight steps include the time period from approval of the report content up to and including distributing the report at the press conference. 1. The Associate Director for Demographic Fields approves the final content of the report prepared by the Population Division after review by the Statistical Methods Division. 2. The Public Information Office receives a copy of the final content to draft a press release. This draft release is approved within the Census Bureau, by the Public Affairs Specialist in the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs’ office, and by the Commerce Department’s newsroom. 3. The report is prepared for camera-ready form. 4. Camera-ready copy is sent to the printer. 5. When the completion time for this report is known, the Census Bureau establishes the release date and time with Commerce Department concurrence. 6. Approximately 48 hours before report release date and time, the Census Bureau briefs the Deputy Secretary for Economic Affairs on the principal findings. 7. The Census Bureau makes the report and accompanying press release available to the media on the established date at 9 a.m. for 10 a.m. release. 8. The Census Bureau distributes the report and press release to the Congress and the OMB at the same time as the media. In releasing the 2003 Income and Poverty Estimates, the Bureau adhered to most of its data dissemination practices. The change in the date and location of the 2003 and subsequent releases of the Income and Poverty Estimates was a departure from the Bureau’s tradition of releasing this information on a Tuesday or Thursday at a news conference at the National Press Club. That said, under the Bureau’s documented data dissemination practices there is no requirement for the Bureau to release this information at a particular location on a given day. Based on our review of available documentation and our interviews with officials involved with the Income and Poverty Estimates, the Bureau followed the steps in the 1985 memo in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 releases, with the exception of the release time as previously described. While the Bureau complied with its documented practices for the dissemination of the Income and Poverty Estimates, they lacked specificity. For example, clear and specific documentation does not exist for how and when the release date and location are to be determined for the Income and Poverty Estimates and who should make those decisions. In actuality, as discussed in greater detail subsequently, in 2003, the Director of the Census Bureau chose the location and the Associate Director for Communications chose the date. However, because this was not thoroughly documented (the 1985 memo only provides general guidance), it is unclear to the public who made these decisions and how they were made. Furthermore, Bureau officials told us that they did not retain any internal memos or e-mails that documented the decision to change the 2003 Income and Poverty Estimates release, which would have provided evidence to support the Bureau’s narrative of the events leading up to the release. Based on our review of available Bureau documents and interviews with key Bureau officials, several factors led to the change in the timing of the release of the 2003 and subsequent Income and Poverty Estimates. The Chief of the Census Bureau’s Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division at the time of the 2003 release of Income and Poverty Estimates, and other senior officials we spoke to, stated that the 2003 Income and Poverty Estimates release was different from years past because the Bureau decided earlier that year to issue the report at the same time as a multi-agency report on supplemental measures of expenditures, consumption, and poverty. This decision was made before the findings of the Income and Poverty Estimates report were known. Bureau officials stated that although the original target date for releasing both reports was September 23, 2003, complications with finalizing the supplemental measures report kept it from being ready for release on that day. According to Bureau officials and documents we reviewed, because the supplemental measures of expenditures, consumption, and poverty report involved several statistical agencies, there was a different clearance process than that used for the Income and Poverty Estimates report. As a result, while the Bureau had completed its review of the latter report, all the members of a steering committee still needed to review the report on supplemental measures. At the same time, based on our discussions with Bureau officials involved with the Income and Poverty Estimates report, as well as available documents, the Commerce Department’s Under Secretary for Economic Affairs wanted to release both reports simultaneously in an effort to broaden the public’s understanding of social well-being. The Under Secretary’s decision was consistent with the Bureau’s ongoing effort to provide alternative estimates of poverty, which itself stemmed from a 1995 report by the National Academy of Sciences that recommended revising how poverty is measured.