To be useful in managing for results and credible for reporting, indicators should be measured consistently and accurately. Specifically, USAID’s Automated Directives System 220.127.116.11, “Data Quality Standards,” sets forth five data quality standards, including “validity” and “reliability.”
To meet the “validity” standard, data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result, with consideration given to how well the data measure the intended result.
To meet the “reliability” standard, data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time.
- Clarify indicators used to measure the impact of the Program.
- Ensure that assessment results are accurately attributed from the statistical samples to the rest of the population and that accurate projections are reflected in upcoming progress reports.
Source: AUDIT REPORT NO. 5-367-11-003-P DECEMBER 14, 2010
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 The Reliability of Performance Data Is Unknown - ADS 202.3.6 - USAID’s Performance Management Toolkit||Performance Targets Were Not Disaggregated by Gender - ADS 200.5 Next→|
- Reported Results Are Not Useful for Program Management - ADS 18.104.22.168.c - ADS 22.214.171.124 - ADS 126.96.36.199
- Field Activities Do Not Correlate Well With Program Indicators - ADS 188.8.131.52 - ADS 184.108.40.206.e
- Strengthen Data Reporting - ADS 220.127.116.11 - USAID’s Performance Management Toolkit
- Data Collection and Reporting Did Not Always Yield Useful Information - ADS 203.
- Program Targets Were Not Clearly Defined - ADS 203
- Data Reported for a Key Indicator Were Not Consistent With the Indicator Definition - ADS 203
- Some Reported Results Were Not Reliable - ADS 203
- Impact Indicators Were Not Measured - ADS 203.3.2 - ADS 18.104.22.168
- Data Quality Assessment Recommendations Were Not Fully Implemented - ADS 22.214.171.124
- The Reliability of Performance Data Is Unknown - ADS 202.3.6 - USAID’s Performance Management Toolkit
- Performance Targets Were Not Disaggregated by Gender - ADS 200.5
- Performance Indicators and Targets Are Inappropriate Measures of Program Progress - (ADS) 126.96.36.199 - ADS 188.8.131.52
- Inaccurate Performance Data Reported - ADS 184.108.40.206 - ADS 220.127.116.11 - Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
- Late Submission of Performance Management Plan - ADS 203.3 - 18.104.22.168 - ADS 203.5.1
- Some Main Indicators Were Not Included in Monitoring Plans - ADS 203.3.2 - ADS 22.214.171.124
- Outdated Results - ADS 126.96.36.199
- Missing Baselines, Targets, and Cumulative Results - ADS 188.8.131.52
- Performance Measurements Did Not Reflect Project Impact - (ADS) 203.3.4
- Did Not Conduct Data Quality Assessments for Key Data Reported to USAID Headquarters - ADS 184.108.40.206
- Performance Management Plan Was Not Current, Not Realistic, Not Aligned With Implemented Projects, and Not Used - ADS 200.6 - ADS 203.3.3