Attachment
1, DepSecDef memo: "Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the
Public"
Ensuring
the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public
by the Department of Defense
Policy
and Procedural Guidance
1. Purpose:
This attachment:
1.1. Prescribes policy and procedures and assigns
responsibilities for ensuring and maximizing the quality (objectivity, utility,
and integrity) of information (hereafter referred to as "quality standards")
disseminated to the public by the Department of Defense.
1.2. Issues guidelines that
include administrative mechanisms for affected persons to seek and obtain
correction of information maintained and disseminated to the public
by Department of Defense Components that does not comply with the quality
standards in these guidelines as based on the OMB guidelines (Federal
Register, February 22, 2002, Volume 67, Number 36, page 8452).
1.3. Does not provide independent authority to release
information to the public.
2. Definitions:
Terms used in this attachment are defined in Attachment
2.
3. Procedures:
3.1. Underlying Principles:
3.1.1. Technology such as the Internet enables DoD
to communicate information quickly and easily to a wide audience. However,
Internet communication also increases the potential harm that can result from
the dissemination of information that does not meet basic information quality
standards. At the same time, the variety of DoD information does not lend
itself to detailed, prescriptive, "one-size-fits-all" DoD-wide guidelines
that require different types of dissemination activities to be treated in
the same manner. These guidelines have been developed with the following
principles in mind.
3.1.1.1. The guidelines apply, in the spirit and intent
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, to a wide variety of DoD information
dissemination activities including practices that have an impact on the acquisition,
storage and maintenance of the information to be disseminated. The guidelines
are generic in order to apply to a variety of media, printed, electronic,
or other forms of publication.
3.1.1.2. Components should not disseminate substantive
information that does not meet a basic level of quality. An additional level
of quality is warranted in those situations involving influential scientific,
financial, or statistical information. This additional level of quality for
influential scientific, financial, or statistical analytical results requires
that such information be "capable of being substantially reproduced."
This is discussed further in paragraph 3.2.3. below.
3.1.1.3. The guidelines are designed so that Components
can apply them in a common sense and workable manner. It is important these
guidelines do not impose unnecessary administrative burdens that would inhibit
Components from continuing to take advantage of the Internet and other technologies
to disseminate information to the public. In this regard, Components may
incorporate the performance standards and procedures required by these guidelines
into their existing information resources management (IRM) and administrative
practices rather than create new and potentially duplicative or contradictory
processes. Under these guidelines, Components must ensure their guidelines
are consistent with these guidelines and their administrative mechanisms satisfy
the standards and procedural requirements in these guidelines. Components
may rely on their implementation of the computer security provisions of the
PRA of 1995 to establish appropriate security safeguards for ensuring the
integrity of the information that they disseminate. Guidance contained in
DEPSECDEF Memorandum, subject: Web Site Administration, dated December 7,
1998, as amended, and DoDD 5230.9, subject: Clearance of DoD Information for
Public Release, dated April 9, 1996, address DoD web site administration policies
and procedures and clearance of DoD information for public release respectively.
3.2. Guidelines:
3.2.1. Components are directed to publish IRM procedures
for reviewing and substantiating (by documentation or other means selected
by Components) the quality standards of information before it is disseminated.
In addition, Components are to establish administrative procedures allowing
affected persons to seek and obtain, if appropriate, correction of disseminated
information that does not comply with the quality standards.
3.2.2. Three substantive terms describe the quality
of information disseminated by DoD and Components: utility, objectivity, and
integrity. Definitions in Attachment 2 provide some context and attributes
for these terms to enable Components to judge whether a particular type or
piece of information meets these attributes. "Utility" refers to
the usefulness of the information to intended users, including the public.
When reviewing information for dissemination, Components
must consider the usefulness of the information for its reasonable and expected
application. "Objectivity" focuses on whether the disseminated
information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete and unbiased
manner and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable and unbiased.
"Integrity" refers to security -- the protection of information
from unauthorized access or revision to ensure that the information is not
compromised through corruption or falsification.
3.2.3. In cases of dissemination of general scientific
and research information, technical information that has been subjected to
formal, independent, external peer review is presumptively objective. However,
this presumption is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing by a complainant
in a particular instance.
3.2.3.1. In dissemination of scientific, financial,
or statistical information that is deemed by DoD to be influential, a higher
quality standard than that of peer review is warranted. To ensure the objectivity
of influential scientific, financial, or statistical information, it must
be capable of being substantially reproduced in accordance with commonly accepted
scientific, financial, or statistical standards. The reproducibility standard
applicable to influential scientific, financial or statistical information is intended to ensure disseminated
information is sufficiently transparent in terms of data and methods of analysis, that it would be feasible
for a replication to be conducted.
3.2.3.2. Components responsible for dissemination of vital health
and medical information shall interpret the reproducibility and peer review
standards in a manner appropriate to assuring the timely flow of vital information
to medical providers, patients, health agencies and the public.
3.2.3.3. With regard to analysis of risks to health,
safety or the environment that DoD Components disseminate, DoD Components
will adopt or adapt as appropriate to the analysis in question, the quality
principles of the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A)&(B)).
3.2.4. Archival information disseminated by DoD and
Component libraries (e.g., Internet distribution of published articles) is
not covered by these guidelines; libraries do not endorse the information
they disseminate. Components have not authored these documents nor adopted
them as representing DoD's or Components’ views. By disseminating these materials,
Components are simply ensuring that the public can have quicker and easier
access to materials that are otherwise publicly available. These guidelines
apply to information that a Component disseminates from a web page but do
not include the provision of hyperlinks to information that others disseminate.
These guidelines also do not apply to opinions where the Component's presentation
makes it clear what is being offered is someone's opinion rather than fact
or the Component's views, unless the Component represents the information
as or uses the information in support of an official position of the Component.
Components should use disclaimers to distinguish the status of information
as they consider their information holdings.
3.2.5. Component dissemination of information prepared by an outside
party in a manner that reasonably suggests the Component agrees with the information renders Component dissemination
of the information subject to these guidelines. However, a Component does
not initiate the dissemination of information
when a Component-employed scientist or Component grantee or contractor publishes
and communicates his research findings in the same manner as his academic
colleagues, even if the Component retains ownership or other intellectual
property rights because the Component paid for the research. To avoid confusion
regarding whether the Component agrees with the information,
the researcher should include an appropriate disclaimer in the publication
or speech to the effect that the views expressed are his own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Component.
3.2.6. In contrast to paragraph 3.2.5. above, if the
Component has directed a third party to disseminate information or retains
the authority to approve the information before release, then the Component
has sponsored the dissemination of the information.
3.2.7. Specific types of information that are not subject
to these guidelines are included in Attachment 2, paragraph 4.
3.3. Administrative Mechanisms:
3.3.1. DoD Components shall establish, and make public,
administrative mechanisms within the guidelines below, allowing affected persons
to seek and obtain, when proper documentation is provided, correction of information
maintained and disseminated by the Component that does not comply with the
DoD or OMB quality standards. However, each Component shall determine whether
a person, which includes groups, organizations and corporations, as defined
by the PRA of 1995, is or will be affected by the Component's information.
These administrative mechanisms are not intended to replace or supersede existing
mechanisms that apply through other procedures. They also do not create substantive
rights and are intended for administration only.
3.3.2. The correction process must be consistent with
the genuine and valid needs of the Component and the Department without disrupting
Component and DoD processes. In making their determination of whether or
not to correct information, Components may reject claims made in bad faith
or without justification and are required to undertake only the degree of
correction that they conclude is appropriate for the nature and timeliness
of the information involved.
3.3.3. Each Component’s information disseminating activity
(IDA) or in the case of Military Departments (MilDep), their designated representative
(designee), shall receive and resolve claims regarding information that does
not comply with the quality standards. The IDA or MilDep designee may consult
with the Component Chief Information Officer or designee during the process.
3.3.4. The IDA or MilDep designee shall allow affected
persons to request correction to publicly disseminated information to the
extent that such information is not accurate, clear, complete or unbiased.
Claims must be in writing (electronic mail is encouraged), brief and simple,
containing as a minimum the disseminating organization, location of the information,
description of the information to be corrected, reason for failure to be compliant
with these guidelines, copies of available documented evidence supporting
the request, and information supporting the contention that the complainant
is an affected person. A claim shall not be required to be resubmitted unless
additional information is essential to process the request. Whenever practical,
a decision whether to reject the claim or correct the information will be
made within 60 working days of receipt of the request. If the claim requires
more than 60 working days to resolve, then the Component will inform the requester
that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision
date.
3.3.5. The IDA or MilDep designee shall promptly take
one of the following actions on requests to correct the information, consulting
with the original disseminator of the information as required:
3.3.5.1. If the IDA agrees with any portion or all
of a requester's request, he will notify the disseminator of the information
that the correction must be made, and shall explain the substance of the requested
correction in a manner associated with the extent of the complaint. The IDA
shall inform the requester, in writing, of the decision and the action taken.
3.3.5.2. If the IDA disagrees with all or any portion
of a request, the requester shall be informed promptly in writing of the refusal
to correct the information, the reason for refusal and the appeal procedures
as outlined in paragraph 3.3.7. below, including the name and address of the
official to whom the appeal should be directed.
3.3.5.3. If the request for correction pertains to
information originated, controlled or maintained by another DoD Component
or Federal Agency, the request shall be referred to the appropriate Component
or Agency and the requester advised of this in writing.
3.3.6. The following procedures shall be used when
reviewing records under dispute:
3.3.6.1. In response to a request for correction of
information, the IDA shall determine whether the requester has adequately
supported the claim that the information is not accurate, clear, complete
or unbiased, and the claim that the requester is an affected person.
3.3.6.2. The IDA shall limit the review of information
to the aspect or aspects of the information that clearly bear on any determination
to correct the information.
3.3.6.3. If a previous claim concerning the information
in question has been received and responded to, a new, similar request may
be rejected as duplicative.
3.3.7. If the requester disagrees with the IDA or MilDep
designee determination, he/she may file an appeal in writing within 30 working
days of notification of the determination. The
appeal shall be referred to the Component Chief Information Officer (CIO).
3.3.7.1. All appeals will be processed within 60 working
days unless the CIO determines that a fair review cannot be made within this
time. If additional time is required, the appellant will be notified of the
delay in writing at the expiration of the 60 working day period. The notification
shall include the reason for the delay and when the appellant may expect a
decision on the appeal.
3.3.7.2. If after review, the CIO determines correction
of the record as requested is unwarranted, the CIO shall advise the appellant
of the denial, and explain the reason for the denial.
3.3.7.3. If after review, the CIO determines that the information should be corrected in accordance
with the appellant’s request, the CIO shall direct the disseminator of the
information to correct the information in question, and advise the appellant
of the action taken.
3.4. Reporting Requirements:
3.4.1. On an annual fiscal-year
basis, Components shall submit reports to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs (ASD(PA)) of the claims received under this policy and
guidance and their resolutions. Components must submit these reports no later
than November 1 every year, including complaints received during the previous
fiscal year. The first reports are due to ASD(PA) November 1, 2003.
ASD(PA) will compile the DoD consolidated
report and submit it annually to OMB beginning January
1, 2004. Component reports shall include the number of claims received, and
how they were resolved (e.g., number corrected, denied, or pending appeal).
The report must also include a compilation of the number of staff-hours devoted
to handling and resolving such claims and preparing reports. The report format
is contained in Attachment 3.
4. Responsibilities:
4.1. The DoD CIO shall:
4.1.1. In coordination
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, oversee implementation
of the policy and procedures in this attachment.
4.1.2. Serve as the
OSD appeal authority to receive and resolve requests for appeal concerning
information disseminated by OSD.
4.2. The Heads of the DoD Components shall:
4.2.1. As information owners:
4.2.1.1. Establish basic quality standards with respect to publicly
disseminated information consistent with these guidelines.
4.2.1.2. Publish a process
consistent with these guidelines for reviewing the quality of information
that allows substantiation of the quality of the information the Component
has disseminated.
4.2.1.3. Publish administrative mechanisms consistent with these guidelines, that allow
affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction
of public information maintained and disseminated by the Component that may
not be in compliance with the quality standards.
4.2.2. Designate the Component public affairs activity
(PAA) or MilDep designee to receive complaint reports regarding information
that may not comply with the quality standards.
4.2.3. Designate the CIO of the Component as the appeal
authority to receive and resolve requests for appeal.
4.2.4. Designate the PAA or MilDep designee to maintain
file records to support and substantiate the DoD annual report to OMB per
paragraph 3.4.1.
4.2.5. Submit annual reports as required in paragraph
3.4.1. above.
4.3. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs (ASD (PA)) shall:
4.3.1. In coordination with the ASD(C3I), oversee implementation
of the policy and procedures in this attachment.
4.3.2. Serve as the PAA for OSD to include:
4.3.2.1. Receive and resolve complaints concerning information
disseminated by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
4.3.2.2. Compile the DoD annual report to OMB as required
in paragraph 3.4.1. above.
4.3.2.3. Maintain file records to support and substantiate the DoD annual
report to OMB per paragraph 3.4.1.
