Policy for handling errors in published statistics

Introduction

This is Statistics New Zealand's current policy on handling errors in published statistics. It is included here to guide statistical producers if errors occur in their statistical outputs.

Policy

Any error (or perceived error) reported in published statistics is to be referred to the relevant manager who is responsible for deciding on any further action.

The guidelines below should be used by business units to develop their own detailed process for managing errors.

Rationale

Members of staff or the public may perceive that information is in error if they do not fully understand particular subject matter statistics or the methodology used. The relevant manager should determine whether the information published contains errors and/or needs some correction or clarification.

Because managers are responsible for the original published data and information, they are also responsible for managing and resolving all reported or discovered errors, whether real or perceived.

The policy and guidelines aim to ensure that all errors are handled in a standard manner which is consistent with their significance rating (see below).

Guidelines

Each business unit should use these general guidelines to develop their own detailed guidelines and process for managing errors.

Discovering errors

Errors (or perceived errors) may be reported to the information centre or other Statistics NZ staff by the data users, or noticed directly by staff. It is important that any apparent error is acted on as soon as possible.

Resolving errors

The manager is responsible for checking the information and determining whether what is published actually contains errors and/or needs some clarification. If it does, the manager should prepare an error report (detailed below) which is used as a plan to resolve the error. The error report becomes a permanent record of the actions taken.

Each error must be given a significance rating, based on the table below. Business unit guidelines need to outline how each error rating will be handled.

Guide for rating errors

Communications

Managers should consider the impact that an error and its correction will have on internal and external stakeholders, and must manage all communications about the release of corrected information in a manner appropriate to the significance of the error.

Making corrections

The normal embargoed/first-release publishing processes should be followed when correcting errors. These processes should be 'fast-tracked' if necessary.

Corrected errors of 'high' or 'medium' significance must include an erratum (correction notice) explaining the corrections made. An erratum may be published as either a separately released statement or as a short correction notice for incorporation into previously published information.

Generally, errors of 'low' significance but relating to data would also require an erratum. However, some errors of low significance (for example minor text errors) could be corrected without a formal statement. The manager and publishing manager should determine whether an erratum is necessary in these cases.

Error reports

An error report should outline at a minimum:

• the nature of the error and how the error occurred
• the significance rating established
• suggested courses of action and the final action taken
• suggestions for avoiding that type of error in future.

A central repository of all completed error reports must be maintained to:

• ensure that all necessary information is available for staff to respond to questions about the published and/or corrected information 
• provide a resource that enables staff to review processes and make improvements to prevent errors occurring 
• provide a permanent record of how previous errors were resolved and how similar errors may be handled.