According to USAID’s ADS 18.104.22.168, to be useful in managing for results and credible for reporting, operating units should ensure that the performance data in the mission’s performance management plan meet data quality standards, such as validity, integrity, precision and reliability.
To meet the standard of validity, performance data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result. To meet the integrity standard, data that are collected, analyzed, and reported should have established mechanisms in place to reduce the possibility that data might be intentionally manipulated.
The precision standard requires that data be sufficiently precise to present a fair picture of performance and enable decision-making. The reliability standard requires that data reflect stable and consistent data collection methods over time and that operating units be confident that progress toward performance targets reflects real changes rather than variations in data collection methods.
Additionally, according to USAID’s Guidebook for Managers and Cognizant Technical Officers on Acquisition and Assistance, the agreement officer’s technical representatives are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all reports submitted by their implementers.
 In January 2009, USAID’s guidance replaced the term “cognizant technical officer” with “agreement officer’s technical representative,” for use in grants and cooperative agreements.
Review the performance management plan on an annual or semiannual basis to ensure that it contributes to an effective system of measuring progress toward intended objectives.
Develop and implement procedures to periodically conduct an independent review of the performance data submitted by implementers.
Source: AUDIT REPORT NO. 5-492-10-001-P October 9, 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 Verify Reported Data - ADS 303.2||Performance Management Plan Was Not Updated ADS 203.3 Next→|
- Improve Data Quality and Program Monitoring - ADS 22.214.171.124 - ADS 126.96.36.199.b
- Performance Management Plans Were Not Approved - ADS 203.3.3
- Monitoring and Evaluation of Activities Was Weak - ADS 303.2(f) - ADS 188.8.131.52
- Some Results Reported by Implementing Partners Were Unsupported or Inaccurate - ADS 184.108.40.206. - ADS 220.127.116.11 - ADS 18.104.22.168
- Performance Targets Were Inconsistent - ADS 22.214.171.124 - ADS 126.96.36.199
- 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 188.8.131.52
- Verify Reported Data - ADS 303.2
- 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 184.108.40.206
- Too Much Credit Claimed for the Results Achieved - ADS 220.127.116.11
- Improve Reporting on Activities - USAID’s guidance for the FY 2009 Performance Plan and Report (PPR)
- Fiscal Year [...] Performance Management Plan Not Developed - ADS 203.3.3 - USAID’s Performance Management Toolkit
- An Evaluation May Help Determine Program Impact - ADS 203.3.6
- 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