Public bodies - councils, health trusts, emergency services, and their regulators - all depend on accurate and accessible information to provide effecient service.
Social workers, child safety professionals, doctors and police are working in the dark unless they have good data.
Services cannot be 'joined up' if one organisation distrusts another's data sets.
Today, the Audit Commission launches a much-needed discussion about how to improve the reliability of facts and figures used by those who make decisions on our behalf.
The public spending watchdog 's new discussion paper Nothing but the truth suggests three options for assessing data, including spot checks on the indicators used to track service performance.
Better information, it says, could improve efficiency and value for money. It also proposes that inspectors should give independent assurance of the credibility of information in addition to auditors' examination of accounts.
Audit Commission chief executive Steve Bundred says: "The issue of data quality bedevils public service. Many recent failures to protect the vulnerable - Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter in Haringey, the high death rate in Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - have raised questions about the quality of information used by professionals, and how well they share it."
Nothing but the truth says that a determined attempt to improve the quality of locally-produced data does get results. For example, nine out of 10 police authorities had good or excellent data quality in 2007, compared with only three in 10 in 2004, according to the Audit Commission.
The discussion paper says 'responsibility for the quality of data unambiguously rests with the organisation producing it. There remains much that can be done at a local level by local public bodies and
their partnerships to improve.'
Steve Bundred adds: "The aim of this paper is to begin a conversation about what needs to be done to improve data quality in local public services, and what some of the options are to enhance effectiveness.