To enable USAID staff to manage for results and produce credible reporting, performance data should meet data quality standards, including standards for reliability and precision (i.e., data should be sufficiently precise) to present a fair picture of performance, according to ADS 220.127.116.11.
Moreover, ADS 18.104.22.168 requires that missions perform data quality assessments and take steps to ensure that submitted data are of reasonable quality and adequately supported. The ADS further states that when missions conduct quality assessments of data from secondary sources (including implementing partners, government counterparts, and international agencies), the mission should focus the assessment on the apparent accuracy and consistency of the data.
According to the ADS, missions should consider visiting a broad range of sites to assess whether reports accurately reflect conditions and events in the field. When a mission provides technical assistance to a government ministry to improve data collection and analysis, the mission may be in a good position to assess the quality of the data. Finally, according to ADS 22.214.171.124, USAID missions should report information candidly and communicate any limitations in data quality so that achievements can be honestly assessed.
Require contractors to develop and implement a written plan that includes procedures for monitoring subgrantees and for confirming that results are accurate and supported by source documentation.
Provide and document training and administrative guidance to staff n preparing support documentation that requires the submission of accurate, well-documented results and (2) report any limitations on data quality when reporting results from counterparts.
Source: AUDIT REPORT NO. 1-504-10-003-P DECEMBER 29, 2009
The recommendations are derived from audit reports of the Office of the Inspector General. The source refers to the audit report, which is available on this site as part of the Audit Database Project: an educational tool for compliance with USAID regulations. Please see the disclaimer of this site before using recommendations.
|←Previous Monitoring and Evaluation of Activities Was Weak - ADS 303.2(f) - ADS 126.96.36.199||Performance Targets Were Inconsistent - ADS 188.8.131.52 - ADS 184.108.40.206 Next→|
- Performance Indicator Definitions Not Consistently Applied - ADS 203.3 - GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government
- Reported Results Were Not Verified – ADS 220.127.116.11. - ADS 202.3.6.
- Partner Implementation Plans Lacked Vital Information – ADS 200.6
- Lack of a Current Performance Management Plan (PMP) - ADS 203.3.3
- Thorough Site Visits Were Not Conducted - ADS 18.104.22.168 - ADS 202.3.6
- Data Quality Assessments Were Not Completed - ADS 22.214.171.124 - Performance and Results Act of 1993
- Performance Management Plan Was Not Completed - ADS 203.3.3
- Improve Data Quality and Program Monitoring - ADS 126.96.36.199 - ADS 188.8.131.52.b
- Performance Management Plans Were Not Approved - ADS 203.3.3
- Monitoring and Evaluation of Activities Was Weak - ADS 303.2(f) - ADS 184.108.40.206
- Performance Targets Were Inconsistent - ADS 220.127.116.11 - ADS 18.104.22.168
- Impact Indicators Not Tracked - ADS 203.3.4
- Develop Indicators and Targets to Measure Progress and Achievement of Project Goals - Assistance Act of 1961, Section 621A, 22 U.S.C. 2381a - ADS 203.3.
- Verify and document reported results periodically for PMP - (ADS) 203.3.4 - ADS 596, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control
- Performance Management Plan Needs to Be Improved - ADS 203.3.3 - ADS 22.214.171.124
- Verify Reported Data - ADS 303.2
- Management of Performance Data Needs to Be Improved - ADS 126.96.36.199
- Performance Management Plan Was Not Updated ADS 203.3
- Partners Set Unrealistic Targets for Development Programs - ADS 200.2 - ADS 203
- Performance Targets Set Too Low - ADS 188.8.131.52